What do you think?
Rate this book
Immaculate Forms: Uncovering the history of women’s bodies
Throughout history, religious scholars, medical men and - occasionally - women themselves, have moulded thought on what 'makes' a woman. She has been called the weaker sex, the fairer sex, the purer sex, among many other monikers. Often, she has been defined simply as 'Not A Man'.
Today, we are more aware than ever of the complex relationship between our bodies and our identities. But contrary to what some may believe, what makes a woman is a question that has always been open-ended.
Immaculate Forms examines all the ways in which medicine and religion have played a gatekeeping role over women's organs. It explores how the womb was seen as both the most miraculous organ in the body and as a sewer; uncovers breasts' legacies as maternal or sexual organs - or both; probes the mystery of the disappearing hymen, and asks, did the clitoris need to be discovered at all?
Today, we are more aware than ever of the complex relationship between our bodies and our identities. But contrary to what some may believe, what makes a woman is a question that has always been open-ended.
Immaculate Forms examines all the ways in which medicine and religion have played a gatekeeping role over women's organs. It explores how the womb was seen as both the most miraculous organ in the body and as a sewer; uncovers breasts' legacies as maternal or sexual organs - or both; probes the mystery of the disappearing hymen, and asks, did the clitoris need to be discovered at all?
448 pages, Hardcover
Published September 5, 2024
41 people are currently reading
4314 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 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 12, 2025
i could tell this was a project of passion and solid, meticulous research. the topic of the medical history of four critical parts of the female anatomy was interesting and explored in more than enough depth. it was very relevant to current discourses about the body, surrogacy, and gender, and it did not shy away from being trans-inclusive.
i found it dragged towards the end, and thought some chapters could have been condensed together. it was a bit too heavy on the anecdotes, which, i mean, the anecdotes ARE the research, but i would've cut or condensed some to get to the point.
it was also largely based on greek, roman, and bible-related sources. attempts were made to draw parallels with some other medical and cultural histories across the world, but those were mostly anecdotal and still considered against the western canon. i don't bring this as up a critique, since i think it would've been almost impossible to truly write a comprehensive history of world medicine while maintaining this amount of detail and keeping it readable rather than encyclopedic. i myself gravitate towards area studies and think mostly focusing on the author's area of expertise was the best way to explore the topic in depth. however, i do think the title and descriptions are a bit misleading and should've been clearer and more realistic about the main focus of the book. i would be interested in similar in-depth analyses of other medical cultures.
i found it dragged towards the end, and thought some chapters could have been condensed together. it was a bit too heavy on the anecdotes, which, i mean, the anecdotes ARE the research, but i would've cut or condensed some to get to the point.
it was also largely based on greek, roman, and bible-related sources. attempts were made to draw parallels with some other medical and cultural histories across the world, but those were mostly anecdotal and still considered against the western canon. i don't bring this as up a critique, since i think it would've been almost impossible to truly write a comprehensive history of world medicine while maintaining this amount of detail and keeping it readable rather than encyclopedic. i myself gravitate towards area studies and think mostly focusing on the author's area of expertise was the best way to explore the topic in depth. however, i do think the title and descriptions are a bit misleading and should've been clearer and more realistic about the main focus of the book. i would be interested in similar in-depth analyses of other medical cultures.
November 8, 2025
37 pages in and I cannot read this stupid book anymore.
Once again, a book that is MEANT to be about women's history and biology has been bastardised, reduced and caricatured to kowtow to transgender ideology - an invasive, perverted men's rights ideology that seeks to make women and girls a footnote in public life, policy and law and history.
The author of this glorified door stopper clearly did a lot of research - But, I have to wonder if she (somehow I know the author is a she based on her picture alone - I must have superpowers) ever stopped to think why transgenderism features so prominently in modern literature and is absolutely non-existent in literature of previous decades. The burqa of transgenderism has been firmly wedged over the author's head - see no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth, and in her particular case, write no truth.
The author argues that sex is a spectrum. No. There are only two sexes and a number of chromosomal and genetic disorders that interrupt the normal development and presentation of those two sexes. Women are adult human females, biologically developed, in lieu of disease, disorder or age, to produce large gametes and gestate young. This biological fact says nothing on the cultural, religious, societal or historical context of which any one woman may or may not find herself in.
I am astounded by some of insane 'arguments' in this book that I simply must correct the most obnoxious:
1. Page 7; "[...] only XX people were included as women: not XY women, who have the Y chromosome, but lack the SRY gene that turns the chromosome on[...]"
There is not such thing as an XY woman. Anyone with a Y chromosome is a genetic male. Women only have X chromosomes. There are rare chromosomal disorders that mean some males are unable to express the Y chromosome and look like women with external female-looking genitalia. They have not developed the biological pathway to produce large gametes, meaning they are not female. These genetic males have do not menstruate, do not produce large gametes (or small gametes) and so are infertile. A lot of these genetic males are raised as female and historically found out about their genetic anomaly due to fertility testing when failing to conceive - thankfully, it is due to increased availability of chromosomal testing that fewer and fewer genetic males are put in these awful situations. I have sympathy for these genetic males who are raised as females, look female and behave female. The transgender movement has cruelly and vindictively used these unfortunate genetic males as a metaphorical sledgehammer against women and girls asserting their boundaries
2. Page 9; Male obstetrician told author's mother in jest that she was male to upset her mother who wanted a girl. The author states that the doctor "re-gendered" her when telling the author's mother the truth about her sex.
The author is implying that medical practitioners have the ability to change the world around them with magic words. Did the author grow a penis and testes when the doctor said she was a boy? Did the male genitalia shrivel up and fall off when the doctor said she was female? No, of course not. The author was female from the moment of conception when a sperm carrying an X chromosome merged with her mother's egg. Later on this page, the author states "assigned sex at birth." Sex is observed at birth and in utero. To even pretend otherwise is anti-science and the creation and forced compliance of "trans-speak" is Orwellian, a shibboleth of coerced membership to a men's rights cult.
3. Page 11; On hermaphroditism.
There is no such thing as hermaphroditism in human beings, it is a biological impossibility, like for all other mammals. Humans are only capable of developing the biological pathway to produce large or small gametes - it is not possible for a human to develop both. People who have disorders of sexual development are often infertile and are not hermaphrodites. There has never been a case of a human being that has fully functioning male and female genitalia, ever. Asexual reproduction is not possible in humans and neither is changing sex, which are characteristics of some actual hermaphroditic species, like slugs.
4. Page 31: Author describes an ancient Roman woman, Agnodice, as donning male attire to learn medicine as being in "drag."
To describe a woman having no choice but to wear male attire and adopt a male persona in order to access education as being in "drag" is disgustingly misogynistic. Drag is a caricaturised performance of women by men, to mock and deride women and womanhood. Agnodice, and the countless other women and girls throughout history, who adopted maleness to escape the oppressive restrictions of their cultures, societies or religions enforced on them did so for necessity to gain access to worlds that were cut off from them ONLY because they were female- they were not trans or in drag. This is disgusting "trans-washing" of women's history, and our on-going rebellion against misogyny and now misogyny from transgender ideology.
5. Page 32; Author expresses bafflement as to why an ancient Mediterranean society dedicated clay breast models to a childbirth goddess as a form of worship.
Do I even need to say anything about this one? It's so stupidly, insultingly obvious. But just on the off chance the author reads my review -*slow voice*- women's breasts produce breastmilk to feed their infants. It is as stupid as question why a sun god might be depicted with imagery of the Sun.
6. Page 32; Author quotes an Athenian comedy play, Women at the Thesmophoria, from 411BCE in which a character says (translated so not literal), ["...say you're a woman: then where are your tits?" The author states that this implies you have to have breasts in order to be a 'proper woman.'
The scene in this play depicts a female character asking another character where 'her' breasts are if 'she's' a woman. It was asked by a woman TO A MAN PRETENDING TO BE A WOMAN WHO WAS ACTIVELY TRYING TO DECIEVE A GROUP OF WOMEN ABOUT HIS SEX. This scene displays one of the age old issues all women and girls have experienced from men and encapsulates trans ideology; men violating women and girl's private and female only spaces. What a self own from a proponent of transgender ideology- it's like the author didn't even read the play!!
Can you imagine how many more criticisms I would have if I'd continued to read this awful book? I'm sick and tired of wasting my money on books which are falsely advertised as feminist. I'm sick and tired of seeing my history and biology being bastardised to feed a male centrist, fetishist ideology. I'm sick and tired of female academics and writers falling over themselves to lie and fabricate in order to appease transgender ideology.
Once again, a book that is MEANT to be about women's history and biology has been bastardised, reduced and caricatured to kowtow to transgender ideology - an invasive, perverted men's rights ideology that seeks to make women and girls a footnote in public life, policy and law and history.
The author of this glorified door stopper clearly did a lot of research - But, I have to wonder if she (somehow I know the author is a she based on her picture alone - I must have superpowers) ever stopped to think why transgenderism features so prominently in modern literature and is absolutely non-existent in literature of previous decades. The burqa of transgenderism has been firmly wedged over the author's head - see no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth, and in her particular case, write no truth.
The author argues that sex is a spectrum. No. There are only two sexes and a number of chromosomal and genetic disorders that interrupt the normal development and presentation of those two sexes. Women are adult human females, biologically developed, in lieu of disease, disorder or age, to produce large gametes and gestate young. This biological fact says nothing on the cultural, religious, societal or historical context of which any one woman may or may not find herself in.
I am astounded by some of insane 'arguments' in this book that I simply must correct the most obnoxious:
1. Page 7; "[...] only XX people were included as women: not XY women, who have the Y chromosome, but lack the SRY gene that turns the chromosome on[...]"
There is not such thing as an XY woman. Anyone with a Y chromosome is a genetic male. Women only have X chromosomes. There are rare chromosomal disorders that mean some males are unable to express the Y chromosome and look like women with external female-looking genitalia. They have not developed the biological pathway to produce large gametes, meaning they are not female. These genetic males have do not menstruate, do not produce large gametes (or small gametes) and so are infertile. A lot of these genetic males are raised as female and historically found out about their genetic anomaly due to fertility testing when failing to conceive - thankfully, it is due to increased availability of chromosomal testing that fewer and fewer genetic males are put in these awful situations. I have sympathy for these genetic males who are raised as females, look female and behave female. The transgender movement has cruelly and vindictively used these unfortunate genetic males as a metaphorical sledgehammer against women and girls asserting their boundaries
2. Page 9; Male obstetrician told author's mother in jest that she was male to upset her mother who wanted a girl. The author states that the doctor "re-gendered" her when telling the author's mother the truth about her sex.
The author is implying that medical practitioners have the ability to change the world around them with magic words. Did the author grow a penis and testes when the doctor said she was a boy? Did the male genitalia shrivel up and fall off when the doctor said she was female? No, of course not. The author was female from the moment of conception when a sperm carrying an X chromosome merged with her mother's egg. Later on this page, the author states "assigned sex at birth." Sex is observed at birth and in utero. To even pretend otherwise is anti-science and the creation and forced compliance of "trans-speak" is Orwellian, a shibboleth of coerced membership to a men's rights cult.
3. Page 11; On hermaphroditism.
There is no such thing as hermaphroditism in human beings, it is a biological impossibility, like for all other mammals. Humans are only capable of developing the biological pathway to produce large or small gametes - it is not possible for a human to develop both. People who have disorders of sexual development are often infertile and are not hermaphrodites. There has never been a case of a human being that has fully functioning male and female genitalia, ever. Asexual reproduction is not possible in humans and neither is changing sex, which are characteristics of some actual hermaphroditic species, like slugs.
4. Page 31: Author describes an ancient Roman woman, Agnodice, as donning male attire to learn medicine as being in "drag."
To describe a woman having no choice but to wear male attire and adopt a male persona in order to access education as being in "drag" is disgustingly misogynistic. Drag is a caricaturised performance of women by men, to mock and deride women and womanhood. Agnodice, and the countless other women and girls throughout history, who adopted maleness to escape the oppressive restrictions of their cultures, societies or religions enforced on them did so for necessity to gain access to worlds that were cut off from them ONLY because they were female- they were not trans or in drag. This is disgusting "trans-washing" of women's history, and our on-going rebellion against misogyny and now misogyny from transgender ideology.
5. Page 32; Author expresses bafflement as to why an ancient Mediterranean society dedicated clay breast models to a childbirth goddess as a form of worship.
Do I even need to say anything about this one? It's so stupidly, insultingly obvious. But just on the off chance the author reads my review -*slow voice*- women's breasts produce breastmilk to feed their infants. It is as stupid as question why a sun god might be depicted with imagery of the Sun.
6. Page 32; Author quotes an Athenian comedy play, Women at the Thesmophoria, from 411BCE in which a character says (translated so not literal), ["...say you're a woman: then where are your tits?" The author states that this implies you have to have breasts in order to be a 'proper woman.'
The scene in this play depicts a female character asking another character where 'her' breasts are if 'she's' a woman. It was asked by a woman TO A MAN PRETENDING TO BE A WOMAN WHO WAS ACTIVELY TRYING TO DECIEVE A GROUP OF WOMEN ABOUT HIS SEX. This scene displays one of the age old issues all women and girls have experienced from men and encapsulates trans ideology; men violating women and girl's private and female only spaces. What a self own from a proponent of transgender ideology- it's like the author didn't even read the play!!
Can you imagine how many more criticisms I would have if I'd continued to read this awful book? I'm sick and tired of wasting my money on books which are falsely advertised as feminist. I'm sick and tired of seeing my history and biology being bastardised to feed a male centrist, fetishist ideology. I'm sick and tired of female academics and writers falling over themselves to lie and fabricate in order to appease transgender ideology.
Want to read
September 2, 2024After having listened to Helen King talk to Liv Albert on Liv's podcast 'Let's Talk About Myths, Baby!' (you can listen here Conversations: Women Are Wet & Spongy, the History of the Female Body w/ Prof Helen King )! I had a lot of thoughts ! I apologize for how long this gets!
As the title of the Conversation goes "Women Are Wet & Spongy" doesn't go into something I've often wondered- if there is scholarship that shows a link/common origin between the wet/hot/moist line of ancient Greek/Roman women's "medicine" and yin/yang and what I've picked up from historical fantasy/cultivation dramas & a "-deficiency" of yin or yang.
Instead it explores the very ancient Greek/Roman "medicine" a history of breasts, clitoris, hymen, and womb. What they are now is not what they were then.
I recalled that even the goddess of women and marriage, Hera has a myth where she "regains her virginity":
Pausanias, Description of Greece 2. 17. 1 :
"In Nauplia [in Argolis] . . . is a spring called Kanathos. Here, say the Argives, Hera bathes every year and recovers her maidenhood. This is one of the sayings”
Obviously Artemis and Athena had their baths interrupted by men and the bad things that happen to men there (transformation into stag, woman and blindness) also - there's Aphrodite emerging from the sea foam of Ouranos' castration.
I did like "the flowers before fruits" and the "menstrual blood likened to sacrificial blood"; Iphigenia/Polyxena distantly make me think of Persephone's rape myth (they thought they were getting married) but also how so many mortals turned to trees/plants/flowers and where they all ended up?- with Persephone.
I did find Pandora's jar as a womb fascinating because so many of the ills that come from the jar are children of the dynasty of gods prior to the Olympians - of Nyx or Eris, also you have this whole myth on how Zeus looks for Gaia's navel with two eagles, why? Because it's Delphi or the omphalos stone, which is also the stone used to make Kronos "give birth" to Zeus' siblings Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Hades and Hestia. Apollo later takes possession of Delphi and the Pythia sitting on a tripod or the omphalos stone has made me think of birth & snakes & sacrifice (and rebirth) there too.
Artemis and her tie to bears are enchanting aren't they? I adore the idea that because Artemis was goddess of birth she could shape people like a bear licking it's cubs into being; maybe that also has a tie to clothing being given to her by women at first cycle and with childbirth maybe because it would have to do with the Fates/spinning/blood.
I did find and read the text mentioning Brauron:
Suidas s.v. Arktos e Brauroniois (trans. Suda On Line) (Byzantine Greek lexicon C10th A.D.) :
"Women playing the bear used to celebrate a festival for Artemis [at Brauron] . . . The reason was that a wild she-bear [sacred to Artemis] used to come to the deme of Phlauidoi and spend time there; and she became tamed and was brought up with the humans. Some virgin was playing with her and, when the girl began acting recklessly, the she-bear was provoked and scratched the virgin; her brothers were angered by this and speared the she-bear, and because of this a pestilential sickness fell upon the Athenians. When the Athenians consulted the oracle [the god] said that there would be a release from the evils if, as blood price for the she-bear that died, they compelled their virgins to play the bear."
The line about the brothers spearing the she bear of the virgin goddess sounded like a allusion to sex to me.
Atalanta being brought up by a bear, Callisto turning into a bear, plus the whole aspect of if it was her son Arcas by Zeus (childbirth? Also this son might have been eaten by his grandfather & reborn by Rhea/Demeter similar to Pelops - also where were the Furies there?) and how there's Polyphonte a hunter of Artemis who scorned Aphrodite, so Aphrodite drove her mad and she mated with a bear, later being turned into a small owl ("whose voice is heard at night. She does not eat or drink and keeps her head turned down and the tips of her feet turned up. She is a portent of war and sedition for mankind.")! Which makes me think of 'witches'/Athena.
I didn't know about Nero wanting to see the womb he came out of and cutting up his mother Agrippina the Younger - it make a interesting parallel to her instructing the assassins sent by her son Nero to smite her in the womb. I couldn't help but think of Tiberius when Nero's attempt at pregnancy via tadpole/frog came up and I wonder if that's meant to have been a link at how awful they were by feminizing them/making them foreign/other.
I look forward to future podcast guest appearances from Helen King !
As the title of the Conversation goes "Women Are Wet & Spongy" doesn't go into something I've often wondered- if there is scholarship that shows a link/common origin between the wet/hot/moist line of ancient Greek/Roman women's "medicine" and yin/yang and what I've picked up from historical fantasy/cultivation dramas & a "-deficiency" of yin or yang.
Instead it explores the very ancient Greek/Roman "medicine" a history of breasts, clitoris, hymen, and womb. What they are now is not what they were then.
I recalled that even the goddess of women and marriage, Hera has a myth where she "regains her virginity":
Pausanias, Description of Greece 2. 17. 1 :
"In Nauplia [in Argolis] . . . is a spring called Kanathos. Here, say the Argives, Hera bathes every year and recovers her maidenhood. This is one of the sayings”
Obviously Artemis and Athena had their baths interrupted by men and the bad things that happen to men there (transformation into stag, woman and blindness) also - there's Aphrodite emerging from the sea foam of Ouranos' castration.
I did like "the flowers before fruits" and the "menstrual blood likened to sacrificial blood"; Iphigenia/Polyxena distantly make me think of Persephone's rape myth (they thought they were getting married) but also how so many mortals turned to trees/plants/flowers and where they all ended up?- with Persephone.
I did find Pandora's jar as a womb fascinating because so many of the ills that come from the jar are children of the dynasty of gods prior to the Olympians - of Nyx or Eris, also you have this whole myth on how Zeus looks for Gaia's navel with two eagles, why? Because it's Delphi or the omphalos stone, which is also the stone used to make Kronos "give birth" to Zeus' siblings Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Hades and Hestia. Apollo later takes possession of Delphi and the Pythia sitting on a tripod or the omphalos stone has made me think of birth & snakes & sacrifice (and rebirth) there too.
Artemis and her tie to bears are enchanting aren't they? I adore the idea that because Artemis was goddess of birth she could shape people like a bear licking it's cubs into being; maybe that also has a tie to clothing being given to her by women at first cycle and with childbirth maybe because it would have to do with the Fates/spinning/blood.
I did find and read the text mentioning Brauron:
Suidas s.v. Arktos e Brauroniois (trans. Suda On Line) (Byzantine Greek lexicon C10th A.D.) :
"Women playing the bear used to celebrate a festival for Artemis [at Brauron] . . . The reason was that a wild she-bear [sacred to Artemis] used to come to the deme of Phlauidoi and spend time there; and she became tamed and was brought up with the humans. Some virgin was playing with her and, when the girl began acting recklessly, the she-bear was provoked and scratched the virgin; her brothers were angered by this and speared the she-bear, and because of this a pestilential sickness fell upon the Athenians. When the Athenians consulted the oracle [the god] said that there would be a release from the evils if, as blood price for the she-bear that died, they compelled their virgins to play the bear."
The line about the brothers spearing the she bear of the virgin goddess sounded like a allusion to sex to me.
Atalanta being brought up by a bear, Callisto turning into a bear, plus the whole aspect of if it was her son Arcas by Zeus (childbirth? Also this son might have been eaten by his grandfather & reborn by Rhea/Demeter similar to Pelops - also where were the Furies there?) and how there's Polyphonte a hunter of Artemis who scorned Aphrodite, so Aphrodite drove her mad and she mated with a bear, later being turned into a small owl ("whose voice is heard at night. She does not eat or drink and keeps her head turned down and the tips of her feet turned up. She is a portent of war and sedition for mankind.")! Which makes me think of 'witches'/Athena.
I didn't know about Nero wanting to see the womb he came out of and cutting up his mother Agrippina the Younger - it make a interesting parallel to her instructing the assassins sent by her son Nero to smite her in the womb. I couldn't help but think of Tiberius when Nero's attempt at pregnancy via tadpole/frog came up and I wonder if that's meant to have been a link at how awful they were by feminizing them/making them foreign/other.
I look forward to future podcast guest appearances from Helen King !
December 26, 2024
Immaculate Forms is an incredible work and an obvious labor of love. King comes at her "four parts" from a societal and linguistic lens- diving into how society (almost exclusively men in power) viewed these specific areas.
The Breast portion was probably some of my favorite academic writing I have read this year. It was funny, and informative and set the book up with very high expectations. Unfortunately, this is a VERY LONG book, and that momentum started to wane halfway through the clitoris section. While, everything continued to be interesting, I noticed a lack of modern-day knowledge and thought... I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HYMAN IS AFTER READING THIS. Which is a huge oversight in my opinion. She is very aware that past people having different notions of our bodies don't make them "wrong", or "dumb", but I'd like to know what we as modern people know.
For a book that is critical of the cis-male lens, western religion, and western culture- it was pretty much focused on that and could have used some more outside sources. There is also the use of an outdated term for Inuit peoples, I'm unsure if it was in a quotation or not.
Despite these shortcomings, this is still an incredible work that is important historically and honestly taught me a whole lot. King is respectful of gender identities and transgender individuals as well. As an agender reader who just had an ovary taken out, I never felt uncomfortable with her portrayal of our bodies :)
I listened to the audiobook, and narrator Elaine Claxton freaking nailed it. She spoke clearly and knowledgeably. I though the author was reading it for a moment!
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an advanced copy in exchange for an honest review :)
The Breast portion was probably some of my favorite academic writing I have read this year. It was funny, and informative and set the book up with very high expectations. Unfortunately, this is a VERY LONG book, and that momentum started to wane halfway through the clitoris section. While, everything continued to be interesting, I noticed a lack of modern-day knowledge and thought... I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HYMAN IS AFTER READING THIS. Which is a huge oversight in my opinion. She is very aware that past people having different notions of our bodies don't make them "wrong", or "dumb", but I'd like to know what we as modern people know.
For a book that is critical of the cis-male lens, western religion, and western culture- it was pretty much focused on that and could have used some more outside sources. There is also the use of an outdated term for Inuit peoples, I'm unsure if it was in a quotation or not.
Despite these shortcomings, this is still an incredible work that is important historically and honestly taught me a whole lot. King is respectful of gender identities and transgender individuals as well. As an agender reader who just had an ovary taken out, I never felt uncomfortable with her portrayal of our bodies :)
I listened to the audiobook, and narrator Elaine Claxton freaking nailed it. She spoke clearly and knowledgeably. I though the author was reading it for a moment!
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an advanced copy in exchange for an honest review :)
June 1, 2025
I can’t believe I wasted a gift card on this.
January 29, 2025
Wow, what a book! It would have been very easy for a book on this topic to either slide into smugness about the errors people in previous generations made in thinking about our bodies or a useless essentialism. But King was very alert to these possibilities and was able to avoid them. There's a ton of information in this book, but I found it to be a fascinating read. Each chapter probably could have been a whole book on its own, there's so much to explore. Highly recommended to anyone with an interest in the topic.
I received an ARC of this book via NetGalley.
I received an ARC of this book via NetGalley.
November 14, 2025
p. 1 "This book is for everyone who has wondered what history has to say in the debates raging today about women and bodies, whether the focus be sex, gender, body shaming, or body modification."
This is closer to an encyclopedia than a book. If you're not up for the whole thing, I would recommend reading the introduction and the conclusion.
One laugh out loud moment for me -
p. 108 "[Mateo Realdo] Colombo dedicated the book [1599] in which he made his claim to have discovered the clitoris... to the pope."
Ok, that's not even the funny part -
p. 112 "Any grand discovery ought to be taken with a pinch of salt, and this applies as much Colombo's clitoris as to the maps that Colombo's counterpart, Christopher Columbus, used in the previous century.
America, and the clitoris, were already there."
Haha - Thank you Dr. King
This is closer to an encyclopedia than a book. If you're not up for the whole thing, I would recommend reading the introduction and the conclusion.
One laugh out loud moment for me -
p. 108 "[Mateo Realdo] Colombo dedicated the book [1599] in which he made his claim to have discovered the clitoris... to the pope."
Ok, that's not even the funny part -
p. 112 "Any grand discovery ought to be taken with a pinch of salt, and this applies as much Colombo's clitoris as to the maps that Colombo's counterpart, Christopher Columbus, used in the previous century.
America, and the clitoris, were already there."
Haha - Thank you Dr. King
May 31, 2025
Immaculate Forms by Helen King is a revelatory tour de force that transforms centuries of ignorance about women's bodies into a compelling argument for intellectual humility. This British classicist has crafted something extraordinary: a book that is simultaneously a meticulous historical study and a subversive challenge to everything we think we know about female anatomy and sexuality.
King's organizational genius lies in her decision to structure the work around body parts—breast, clitoris, hymen, and womb—rather than chronology. This anatomical approach creates something far more powerful than a conventional historical narrative. Instead of tracing linear progress, King assembles a fascinating collection of contradictions that spans from Eve to Mary, from ancient Roman wet nurses to Victorian clitorectomy clinics. The result feels less like academic discourse and more like detective work, uncovering the bizarre logic that has governed Western understanding of women's bodies.
The book's greatest strength is King's refusal to offer false comfort about human progress. As she warns readers, this is "not a reassuring narrative of progress, but one with no clear direction, no steady, logical development." This honest assessment makes her findings all the more striking. Through her lively prose and meticulous research, King demonstrates that virtually every "obvious" truth about female anatomy has been contested, reversed, or completely reimagined across different eras and cultures.
What emerges is a masterful demonstration of how power shapes knowledge. King shows with devastating clarity that medical and religious authorities have consistently projected their anxieties, desires, and prejudices onto women's bodies, creating elaborate theories that say far more about the theorizers than their subjects. The variety and sheer contradiction of these beliefs become their own form of argument against any claims to definititive understanding.
King writes with remarkable accessibility, transforming potentially dry academic material into engaging storytelling. Her background as a classicist provides her with both the scholarly rigor to navigate complex historical sources and the intellectual sophistication to see patterns across millennia.
The damage done by Christian interpretations of female sexuality receives particular attention, but King never reduces her analysis to simple blame.
Immaculate Forms succeeds brilliantly as both scholarship and consciousness-raising. King leaves readers with a profound appreciation for how contingent and culturally constructed our most basic assumptions about women's bodies really are. The book's final impression is both humbling and liberating: if authorities throughout history have been so spectacularly wrong about female anatomy, perhaps our current certainties deserve similar skepticism.
This is essential reading for anyone interested in women's history, medical history, or the sociology of knowledge. King has produced a work that is both deeply scholarly and wonderfully subversive—a book that will make you question not just what you know about women's bodies, but how you know it.
King's organizational genius lies in her decision to structure the work around body parts—breast, clitoris, hymen, and womb—rather than chronology. This anatomical approach creates something far more powerful than a conventional historical narrative. Instead of tracing linear progress, King assembles a fascinating collection of contradictions that spans from Eve to Mary, from ancient Roman wet nurses to Victorian clitorectomy clinics. The result feels less like academic discourse and more like detective work, uncovering the bizarre logic that has governed Western understanding of women's bodies.
The book's greatest strength is King's refusal to offer false comfort about human progress. As she warns readers, this is "not a reassuring narrative of progress, but one with no clear direction, no steady, logical development." This honest assessment makes her findings all the more striking. Through her lively prose and meticulous research, King demonstrates that virtually every "obvious" truth about female anatomy has been contested, reversed, or completely reimagined across different eras and cultures.
What emerges is a masterful demonstration of how power shapes knowledge. King shows with devastating clarity that medical and religious authorities have consistently projected their anxieties, desires, and prejudices onto women's bodies, creating elaborate theories that say far more about the theorizers than their subjects. The variety and sheer contradiction of these beliefs become their own form of argument against any claims to definititive understanding.
King writes with remarkable accessibility, transforming potentially dry academic material into engaging storytelling. Her background as a classicist provides her with both the scholarly rigor to navigate complex historical sources and the intellectual sophistication to see patterns across millennia.
The damage done by Christian interpretations of female sexuality receives particular attention, but King never reduces her analysis to simple blame.
Immaculate Forms succeeds brilliantly as both scholarship and consciousness-raising. King leaves readers with a profound appreciation for how contingent and culturally constructed our most basic assumptions about women's bodies really are. The book's final impression is both humbling and liberating: if authorities throughout history have been so spectacularly wrong about female anatomy, perhaps our current certainties deserve similar skepticism.
This is essential reading for anyone interested in women's history, medical history, or the sociology of knowledge. King has produced a work that is both deeply scholarly and wonderfully subversive—a book that will make you question not just what you know about women's bodies, but how you know it.
April 24, 2025
Book of the year 2024 to me, honestly. You'd think reading one book from the genre "history of women patients and female doctors" would have taught me every fucked up thing there is to know about it, but you do wonder how many more vile treatments women have been subjected to in the past now that, thanks to Helen King, I discovered I had only breached the surface of medical malpractice. Similarly to Elinor Cleghorn's Unwell Women: Misdiagnosis and Myth in a Man-Made World, Immaculate Forms is a never-ending well of medical anecdotes (in the broader sense, since few of them are funny) to tell my healthcare coworkers on the job and hopefully teach them a lesson. Besides the enjoyable writing, this book boasts an
astonishingly gorgeous cover and title that I don't get tired of gazing at. Bravo!
***I received a digital copy from the publisher through Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.***
astonishingly gorgeous cover and title that I don't get tired of gazing at. Bravo!
***I received a digital copy from the publisher through Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.***
March 28, 2025
I’m always fascinated to see how history represents women across the ages and immaculate forms did an amazing job representing the four body parts that define women (the breast, clitoris, hymen, and womb) in tracing their history.
I appreciated the inclusivity author Helen King included in her narrative, representing female forms in all shapes and variations from the traditional to transit non-binary representation.
I found this book not only to be very informative, but highly entertaining and something I could easily listen to and be fascinated by.
Narrator Elaine Claxton had a great reading voice and articulated. The information clearly will still being very engaging. This is a great book to you experience through audio.
Overall is very impressed with the book. It’s taken on women and femininity throughout history and highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject or expressing themselves as women.
I appreciated the inclusivity author Helen King included in her narrative, representing female forms in all shapes and variations from the traditional to transit non-binary representation.
I found this book not only to be very informative, but highly entertaining and something I could easily listen to and be fascinated by.
Narrator Elaine Claxton had a great reading voice and articulated. The information clearly will still being very engaging. This is a great book to you experience through audio.
Overall is very impressed with the book. It’s taken on women and femininity throughout history and highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject or expressing themselves as women.
December 26, 2025
“Our bodies exist, and have always existed, in history. It is impossible to experience them in a vacuum, as culture clamors to tell us what we are as women, what we can and can’t do, and how our bodies and their supposed limitations are responsible for all that.”
If you are a woman, this book will radicalize you and make you want to scream- it will also take everything you think you know about the relationships between sex and gender, medicine, religion, and bodily autonomy and spin it on its head.
My only criticisms of this book are 1) that it does feel like a text book with a ton of historical citations, sometimes to the detriment of the narrative and 2) it is dense in content and doesn’t make for a quick read.
If you are a woman, this book will radicalize you and make you want to scream- it will also take everything you think you know about the relationships between sex and gender, medicine, religion, and bodily autonomy and spin it on its head.
My only criticisms of this book are 1) that it does feel like a text book with a ton of historical citations, sometimes to the detriment of the narrative and 2) it is dense in content and doesn’t make for a quick read.
April 5, 2025
“Menemukan klitoris bukan hanya soal anatomi, tapi juga soal kuasa—tentang siapa yang berhak mendefinisikan kenikmatan, dan siapa yang tidak.”]
Bab ini mengangkat pertanyaan mendasar:
Bagaimana jika bagian tubuh yang mampu memberi perempuan kenikmatan terbesar justru yang paling lama disangkal keberadaannya?
Bab ini menantang cara berpikir kita tentang tubuh dan seksualitas, sekaligus mengajak kita melihat bahwa apa yang tidak dibicarakan sering kali mencerminkan apa yang ingin dikendalikan.
mengontrol tubuh perempuan, sering kali mengabaikan fakta biologis demi menjaga kehormatan keluarga atau struktur sosial.
Ironisnya, dalam beberapa teks medis, selaput dara justru tidak disebut sama sekali. Di titik inilah King menggunakan istilah “disappearing”—karena baik secara medis maupun sosial, ia muncul dan menghilang sesuai dengan kebutuhan naratif zaman.
Politisasi tubuh perempuan terjadi ketika tubuh mereka:
Dijadikan simbol moral dan sosial
Didefinisikan melalui kacamata laki-laki
Dikelola demi menjaga tatanan patriarki
Dihilangkan atau dipelintir dari narasi ilmiah dan historis yang sebenarnya
Berikut adalah rangkuman **Chapter 4: *Existing for the Sake of the Womb*** dari buku *Immaculate Forms* karya Helen King, diterjemahkan ke dalam **bahasa Indonesia**, dengan tetap menjaga kedalaman dan nada analitis dari penulis:
---
### **Chapter 4 – *Ada Demi Rahim***
Bab ini membongkar bagaimana **identitas perempuan secara historis telah direduksi hanya menjadi “wadah” bagi rahim**, dan bagaimana rahim dijadikan pusat dari segala definisi medis, sosial, dan moral tentang perempuan.
Helen King menyoroti bahwa dalam banyak teks medis kuno—termasuk dari Hippocrates, Galen, dan dokter-dokter Eropa abad pertengahan—**perempuan dilihat sebagai makhluk yang tubuhnya “dirancang” hanya untuk reproduksi.** Segala aspek dari tubuh, pikiran, bahkan penyakit perempuan sering kali ditelusuri kembali ke rahim.
> “Perempuan tidak memiliki tubuh. Mereka memiliki rahim, dan tubuh mereka adalah pelengkapnya.”
Konsep **"wandering womb"** (rahim yang mengembara)—yang dipercaya menyebabkan berbagai penyakit mental dan fisik pada perempuan—adalah salah satu contoh bagaimana rahim bukan hanya dilihat sebagai organ biologis, tapi juga **sumber ketidakstabilan dan kelemahan perempuan**.
King juga menunjukkan bahwa pemahaman semacam ini memperkuat ide bahwa **fungsi utama perempuan dalam masyarakat adalah menjadi ibu**, dan jika ia tidak menikah, tidak hamil, atau tidak menyusui, maka keberadaannya dianggap “gagal” atau “tidak lengkap.”
Selain itu, ia mengkritik bagaimana **modernitas pun tidak sepenuhnya lepas dari narasi ini**, dengan praktik medis, sosial, bahkan hukum yang masih menjadikan rahim sebagai titik tolak dalam menilai perempuan.
---
### 🔎 Inti dari bab ini:
- **Tubuh perempuan didefinisikan dari fungsinya untuk orang lain**, bukan untuk dirinya sendiri.
- Rahim dijadikan simbol kuasa dan kendali atas perempuan.
- Perempuan yang tidak “menggunakan” rahimnya (tidak menikah, tidak hamil) dianggap menyimpang atau tidak normal.
---
Bab ini memperkuat pesan buku: bahwa **pengetahuan tentang tubuh perempuan telah lama dibentuk bukan untuk memberdayakan, tapi untuk mengontrol.**
Kalau kamu ingin dilanjutkan ke **Conclusion: Our Bodies, Our Selves, Our History**, tinggal bilang aja ya!
Berikut adalah rangkuman bagian **Conclusion: *Our Bodies, Our Selves, Our History*** dari buku *Immaculate Forms* karya Helen King, diterjemahkan ke dalam **bahasa Indonesia**, dengan tetap menjaga gaya reflektif dan kritis penulis:
---
### **Kesimpulan – Tubuh Kita, Diri Kita, Sejarah Kita**
Dalam penutup ini, Helen King mengajak pembaca untuk melihat kembali bagaimana **sejarah tubuh perempuan telah dibentuk, disusun, dan sering kali disalahartikan**—bukan oleh perempuan itu sendiri, melainkan oleh struktur kuasa yang melingkupinya: medis, agama, budaya, dan hukum.
Ia menegaskan bahwa:
> “Tubuh perempuan selalu menjadi lokasi perdebatan—bukan karena tubuh itu misterius, tetapi karena tubuh itu penting secara politis dan ideologis.”
King menyoroti bagaimana narasi tentang **payudara, klitoris, selaput dara, dan rahim** bukan sekadar wacana biologis. Mereka adalah titik-titik di mana **kontrol, stigma, dan penghapusan perempuan terjadi**—baik dalam buku teks medis maupun dalam praktik sosial sehari-hari.
Namun, King juga memberi ruang harapan. Ia mengajak pembaca untuk **merebut kembali narasi tubuh perempuan**, bukan dengan menolak sejarah, tapi dengan **membaca ulang, mengkritisi, dan menulis ulang dari sudut pandang perempuan sendiri.**
Ia mengakui bahwa banyak hal telah berubah, tapi juga menekankan:
**“Jika kita tidak sadar akan bagaimana sejarah dibentuk, kita berisiko mengulangnya.”**
---
### 🔚 Penutup reflektif:
Kesimpulan ini bukan hanya mengakhiri argumen akademis, tapi juga menyuarakan pesan yang personal dan politis:
> Bahwa **tubuh perempuan bukan milik sejarah, bukan milik sistem, bukan milik laki-laki—melainkan milik perempuan itu sendiri.**
---
Kalau kamu ingin aku bantu membuat **kesimpulan visual** untuk konten edukatif atau versi *quote carousel*, tinggal bilang aja ya!
Bab ini mengangkat pertanyaan mendasar:
Bagaimana jika bagian tubuh yang mampu memberi perempuan kenikmatan terbesar justru yang paling lama disangkal keberadaannya?
Bab ini menantang cara berpikir kita tentang tubuh dan seksualitas, sekaligus mengajak kita melihat bahwa apa yang tidak dibicarakan sering kali mencerminkan apa yang ingin dikendalikan.
mengontrol tubuh perempuan, sering kali mengabaikan fakta biologis demi menjaga kehormatan keluarga atau struktur sosial.
Ironisnya, dalam beberapa teks medis, selaput dara justru tidak disebut sama sekali. Di titik inilah King menggunakan istilah “disappearing”—karena baik secara medis maupun sosial, ia muncul dan menghilang sesuai dengan kebutuhan naratif zaman.
Politisasi tubuh perempuan terjadi ketika tubuh mereka:
Dijadikan simbol moral dan sosial
Didefinisikan melalui kacamata laki-laki
Dikelola demi menjaga tatanan patriarki
Dihilangkan atau dipelintir dari narasi ilmiah dan historis yang sebenarnya
Berikut adalah rangkuman **Chapter 4: *Existing for the Sake of the Womb*** dari buku *Immaculate Forms* karya Helen King, diterjemahkan ke dalam **bahasa Indonesia**, dengan tetap menjaga kedalaman dan nada analitis dari penulis:
---
### **Chapter 4 – *Ada Demi Rahim***
Bab ini membongkar bagaimana **identitas perempuan secara historis telah direduksi hanya menjadi “wadah” bagi rahim**, dan bagaimana rahim dijadikan pusat dari segala definisi medis, sosial, dan moral tentang perempuan.
Helen King menyoroti bahwa dalam banyak teks medis kuno—termasuk dari Hippocrates, Galen, dan dokter-dokter Eropa abad pertengahan—**perempuan dilihat sebagai makhluk yang tubuhnya “dirancang” hanya untuk reproduksi.** Segala aspek dari tubuh, pikiran, bahkan penyakit perempuan sering kali ditelusuri kembali ke rahim.
> “Perempuan tidak memiliki tubuh. Mereka memiliki rahim, dan tubuh mereka adalah pelengkapnya.”
Konsep **"wandering womb"** (rahim yang mengembara)—yang dipercaya menyebabkan berbagai penyakit mental dan fisik pada perempuan—adalah salah satu contoh bagaimana rahim bukan hanya dilihat sebagai organ biologis, tapi juga **sumber ketidakstabilan dan kelemahan perempuan**.
King juga menunjukkan bahwa pemahaman semacam ini memperkuat ide bahwa **fungsi utama perempuan dalam masyarakat adalah menjadi ibu**, dan jika ia tidak menikah, tidak hamil, atau tidak menyusui, maka keberadaannya dianggap “gagal” atau “tidak lengkap.”
Selain itu, ia mengkritik bagaimana **modernitas pun tidak sepenuhnya lepas dari narasi ini**, dengan praktik medis, sosial, bahkan hukum yang masih menjadikan rahim sebagai titik tolak dalam menilai perempuan.
---
### 🔎 Inti dari bab ini:
- **Tubuh perempuan didefinisikan dari fungsinya untuk orang lain**, bukan untuk dirinya sendiri.
- Rahim dijadikan simbol kuasa dan kendali atas perempuan.
- Perempuan yang tidak “menggunakan” rahimnya (tidak menikah, tidak hamil) dianggap menyimpang atau tidak normal.
---
Bab ini memperkuat pesan buku: bahwa **pengetahuan tentang tubuh perempuan telah lama dibentuk bukan untuk memberdayakan, tapi untuk mengontrol.**
Kalau kamu ingin dilanjutkan ke **Conclusion: Our Bodies, Our Selves, Our History**, tinggal bilang aja ya!
Berikut adalah rangkuman bagian **Conclusion: *Our Bodies, Our Selves, Our History*** dari buku *Immaculate Forms* karya Helen King, diterjemahkan ke dalam **bahasa Indonesia**, dengan tetap menjaga gaya reflektif dan kritis penulis:
---
### **Kesimpulan – Tubuh Kita, Diri Kita, Sejarah Kita**
Dalam penutup ini, Helen King mengajak pembaca untuk melihat kembali bagaimana **sejarah tubuh perempuan telah dibentuk, disusun, dan sering kali disalahartikan**—bukan oleh perempuan itu sendiri, melainkan oleh struktur kuasa yang melingkupinya: medis, agama, budaya, dan hukum.
Ia menegaskan bahwa:
> “Tubuh perempuan selalu menjadi lokasi perdebatan—bukan karena tubuh itu misterius, tetapi karena tubuh itu penting secara politis dan ideologis.”
King menyoroti bagaimana narasi tentang **payudara, klitoris, selaput dara, dan rahim** bukan sekadar wacana biologis. Mereka adalah titik-titik di mana **kontrol, stigma, dan penghapusan perempuan terjadi**—baik dalam buku teks medis maupun dalam praktik sosial sehari-hari.
Namun, King juga memberi ruang harapan. Ia mengajak pembaca untuk **merebut kembali narasi tubuh perempuan**, bukan dengan menolak sejarah, tapi dengan **membaca ulang, mengkritisi, dan menulis ulang dari sudut pandang perempuan sendiri.**
Ia mengakui bahwa banyak hal telah berubah, tapi juga menekankan:
**“Jika kita tidak sadar akan bagaimana sejarah dibentuk, kita berisiko mengulangnya.”**
---
### 🔚 Penutup reflektif:
Kesimpulan ini bukan hanya mengakhiri argumen akademis, tapi juga menyuarakan pesan yang personal dan politis:
> Bahwa **tubuh perempuan bukan milik sejarah, bukan milik sistem, bukan milik laki-laki—melainkan milik perempuan itu sendiri.**
---
Kalau kamu ingin aku bantu membuat **kesimpulan visual** untuk konten edukatif atau versi *quote carousel*, tinggal bilang aja ya!
March 9, 2025
There are two main takeaways from this book. The first is that everything we know – and think we know – about our bodies must always be viewed through a cultural and, by extension, a historical lens. The second is that there really is no such thing as a true sex binary, and that any attempts to define one will always come up short.
Both of these points are argued consistently and well across the book. King spends a lot of time looking at classical and early Christian ideas, many of which shaped – and still shape – our understanding of the human body. She also includes approaches from other cultures where appropriate, often striking a delicate balance on some of the more controversial topics discussed.
📚Blog📖YouTube📖Instagram📚
I really liked the structure of the book, focussing on particular body parts that are associated with womanhood. That being said, I think it would have been better if the order had been reversed; so much of the first three body parts discussed also involved discussion of the womb, so by the time we got to the final section there wasn’t actually all that much more to discuss.
The thing that sticks out the whole way through is that the overwhelming majority of the opinions and research presented were from men. Of course this is the nature of historical records, that white male voices were not only given priority, but often were the only people given access to the tools and resources needed for research in the first place. It still would have been nice if there had been more acknowledgement of that, or more discussion into where the gaps in the research are.
Even so, this was a fascinating and insightful read, and very timely given the current challenges facing both trans people and women’s reproductive healthcare around the world.
I received a free copy for review.
Both of these points are argued consistently and well across the book. King spends a lot of time looking at classical and early Christian ideas, many of which shaped – and still shape – our understanding of the human body. She also includes approaches from other cultures where appropriate, often striking a delicate balance on some of the more controversial topics discussed.
📚Blog📖YouTube📖Instagram📚
I really liked the structure of the book, focussing on particular body parts that are associated with womanhood. That being said, I think it would have been better if the order had been reversed; so much of the first three body parts discussed also involved discussion of the womb, so by the time we got to the final section there wasn’t actually all that much more to discuss.
The thing that sticks out the whole way through is that the overwhelming majority of the opinions and research presented were from men. Of course this is the nature of historical records, that white male voices were not only given priority, but often were the only people given access to the tools and resources needed for research in the first place. It still would have been nice if there had been more acknowledgement of that, or more discussion into where the gaps in the research are.
Even so, this was a fascinating and insightful read, and very timely given the current challenges facing both trans people and women’s reproductive healthcare around the world.
I received a free copy for review.
March 6, 2025
Of all the books on the female body (Angier, Hazard, Bohannon) I liked this one the most. The author tells us how the female body was viewed in history, with an emphasis on Greek and Roman interpretations. Being an expert in ancient medical texts, King points out many errors seeping through in even recent treatises, on the ancient perceptions of the human body. For example, Figure 27 in Vesalius' book 7 is not a penis but a vagina and a womb, displayed to prove that the subject was not pregnant, although she pleaded so to evade execution. Hippocrates never described clitoridectomy, only the removal of a genital wart. And so on. I really liked these stories. It is a pity, however, that the book is only about four organs of the female body (of which two are actually not exclusively female), while there are so many parts to discuss (femur, pelvis, heart, thorax, clavicle, hippocampus, prefrontal cortex) when it comes to the immaculate forms of the female body that are different from men's.
March 16, 2025
Thank you to NetGalley for providing me an ARC of this audiobook for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
A very cool sociological/medical look at the history of women's bodies. Truly wild to see how much of our current and past understandings come entirely from men. I really appreciated that this author took the time to dissect the idea of the gender binary and how it just isn't substantiated by medicine. I also very much enjoyed the narration of the audiobook!
A very cool sociological/medical look at the history of women's bodies. Truly wild to see how much of our current and past understandings come entirely from men. I really appreciated that this author took the time to dissect the idea of the gender binary and how it just isn't substantiated by medicine. I also very much enjoyed the narration of the audiobook!
January 4, 2026
I liked this, but also it was more “pleasant reading” rather than me highlighting loads and loving the facts. We explore four parts of the Woman’s body - tits, the clitoris, the hymen and the womb.
Very focused on western history and lens with occasional reference to rest of the world from the present day perspective, which is a bit of a shame and felt a bit jarring to read. It was inclusive to trans bodies throughout, which was nice.
Very focused on western history and lens with occasional reference to rest of the world from the present day perspective, which is a bit of a shame and felt a bit jarring to read. It was inclusive to trans bodies throughout, which was nice.
February 4, 2025
"The key Bible verse - 'So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them' ... may not be as binary as some think, as it uses 'and' rather than 'or'. As with day and night, mediated by dawn and dusk, here the binary does not rule out other possibilities". I read thus far and no further. You may think differently.
June 2, 2025
Excellent overview, and a great read for women and men, gay (like me) and straight.
August 27, 2025
My review for this book is now available in Classical Review:
https://tinyurl.com/yckcd7td
https://tinyurl.com/yckcd7td
January 25, 2025
A very well written piece of work. It went way more into depth than I thought it would. I liked having the book divided into four parts: breast, clitoris, hymen, womb. The author has done extensive research and the historical aspects were very interesting. It was a bit too in depth for my general personal reading and interest, although I found it interesting. It would a great reader for a feminist course focusing on the body or a medical sociology class.
October 22, 2025
An exhaustive, and occasionally exhausting look at the female body and how history and society has shaped the way it has been viewed and often damaged by the 'moral' viewpoints of the age. This is thoroughly researched, and contains some eye-opening and eye-watering facts. But it did turn into a bit of a slog.
May 20, 2025
This is a wonderful history on the various parts of the female body, as constructed by various parties through the ages. What's clear is that a lot of men, many hailing from religious and (pseudo)scientific and (pseudo)medical backgrounds more or less made up what female (and other) bodies are and how how they work.
While King covers some biological matters (as we think we know it now and thought we knew it then), her focus is less about the inner workings of the female body and more about how it was perceived and demarcated by various societies and cultures and mythologies. Yes, there's a lot of sexism. The mysteries of the feminine just always seemed to be less than and/or derived from men ... hmm, funny how that is. I was hoping for more on how these historical notions still guide modern thought, including in the medical and professional spheres. I also found that there was a preponderance of Western and Western-adjacent material. I was pleasantly surprised to have coverage of trans and intersex topics, although the former was clearly out of the author's depth. For instance, at one point, King comments on how there's no need to bind chests to be masculine, coupled alongside a discussion on how all people have breasts and men can even breastfeed under certain conditions. Okay.
The narration was superb. Frankly, I don't know if I would've gotten through this dense text in text form.
Thank you to NetGalley and Hachette Audio for the advance copy of the audiobook.
While King covers some biological matters (as we think we know it now and thought we knew it then), her focus is less about the inner workings of the female body and more about how it was perceived and demarcated by various societies and cultures and mythologies. Yes, there's a lot of sexism. The mysteries of the feminine just always seemed to be less than and/or derived from men ... hmm, funny how that is. I was hoping for more on how these historical notions still guide modern thought, including in the medical and professional spheres. I also found that there was a preponderance of Western and Western-adjacent material. I was pleasantly surprised to have coverage of trans and intersex topics, although the former was clearly out of the author's depth. For instance, at one point, King comments on how there's no need to bind chests to be masculine, coupled alongside a discussion on how all people have breasts and men can even breastfeed under certain conditions. Okay.
The narration was superb. Frankly, I don't know if I would've gotten through this dense text in text form.
Thank you to NetGalley and Hachette Audio for the advance copy of the audiobook.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews