The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies

by Anthony Giddens

The sexual an evocative term, but what meaning can be given to it today? How does “sexuality” come into being, and what connections does it have with the changes that have affected personal life more generally? In answering these questions, the author disputes many of the dominant interpretations of the role of sexuality in modern culture. The author suggests that the revolutionary changes in which sexuality has become cauth up are more long-term than generally conceded. He sees them as intrinsic to the development of modern societies as a whole and to the broad characteristics of that development. Sexuality as we know it today is a creation of modernity, a terrain upon which the contradictory tendencies of modern social life play themselves out in full. Emancipation and oppression, opportunity and risk―these have become a part of a heady mix that irresistably ties our individual lives to global outcomes and the transformation of intimacy. We live today in a social order in which, for the first time in histroy, women are becoming equal to men―or at least have lodged a claim to such equality as their right. The author does not attempt to analyze the gender inequalities that persist in the economic or political domains, but instead concentrates on a more hisdden personal area in which women―ordinary women, in the course of their day-to-day lives, quite apart from any political agenda―have pioneered changes of greate, and generalizable, importance. These changes essentially concern an exploration of the potentialities of the “pure relationship,” a relaitonship that presumes sexual and emotional equality, and is explosive in its connotations for pre-existing relations of power. The author analyzes the emergence of what he calls plastic sexuality―sexuality freed from its intrinsic relation to reproduction―in terms of the emotional emancipation implicit in the pure relationship, as well as women’s claim to sexual pleasure. Plastic sexuality is decentered sexuality, freed from both reproduction and subservience to a fixed object. It can be molded as a trait of personality, and thus become bound up with the reflexivity of the self. Premised on plastic sexuality, the pure relationship is not exclusively heterosexual; it is neutral in terms of sexual orientation. The author speculates that the transformaion of intimacy might be a subversive influence on modern institutions as a whole, for a social world in which the dominant ideal was to achieve intinsic rewards from the company of others might be vastly different from that which we know at the present.

Genres: Sociology, Nonfiction, Psychology, Sexuality, Philosophy, Relationships, Social Science

216 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Anthony Giddens, Baron Giddens (born 18 January 1938) is a British sociologist who is renowned for his theory of structuration and his holistic view of modern societies. He is considered to be one of the most prominent modern contributors in the field of sociology, the author of at least 34 books, published in at least 29 languages, issuing on average more than one book every year. In 2007, Giddens was listed as the fifth most-referenced author of books in the humanities.

Three notable stages can be identified in his academic life. The first one involved outlining a new vision of what sociology is, presenting a theoretical and methodological understanding of that field, based on a critical reinterpretation of the classics. His major publications of that era include Capitalism and Modern Social Theory (1971) and New Rules of Sociological Method (1976). In the second stage Giddens developed the theory of structuration, an analysis of agency and structure, in which primacy is granted to neither. His works of that period, such as Central Problems in Social Theory (1979) and The Constitution of Society (1984), brought him international fame on the sociological arena.

The most recent stage concerns modernity, globalization and politics, especially the impact of modernity on social and personal life. This stage is reflected by his critique of postmodernity, and discussions of a new "utopian-realist"[3] third way in politics, visible in the Consequence of Modernity (1990), Modernity and Self-Identity (1991), The Transformation of Intimacy (1992), Beyond Left and Right (1994) and The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (1998). Giddens' ambition is both to recast social theory and to re-examine our understanding of the development and trajectory of modernity.

Currently Giddens serves as Emeritus Professor at the London School of Economics.

Reviews

[Therese · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a sociologist's perspective on how concepts of intimacy and relationships have changed since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. I was interested in it because I'm trying to understand authoritarianism at both the political and personal level, and part of my thinking is that there is a relationship between authoritarian attitudes and intimacy, since authoritarianism revolves around control, and controlling another person is arguably a form of intimacy, in which there's a breaking down of barriers between two wills to enable the intrusion of one will into another.

I think it was Giddens who first introduced the concept of "pure relationships" in sociology. This refers to consensual relationships people have just for the sake of their own happiness and fulfillment, which they can leave at will. Giddens idea is that such relationships have become more common and more of an ideal since the sexual revolution, particularly for women and GLBTQ folks. The idea of the pure relationship differs from e.g. traditional marriage, which was more of a practical economic arrangement, or the notion of romantic love or sexual license that was driven by emotional or physical compulsion. A lot of people have struggled with this shift, for example, straight men and women in cases where the women have moved away from ideals of chastity and see sex as a prelude to an egalitarian relationship, but where the men don't want commitment and just want sex.

I mostly skimmed the chapters in the beginning and middle, because even though Giddens was doing important work by putting into words a lot of the changes that had been wrought by modernity, viewed from today's perspective it didn't feel very new or surprising to me. Where things got interesting was the last two chapters, where he discusses ideas from the philosopher Wilhelm Reich about repression and from Herbert Marcuse about "eros and civilization." (I haven't read Reich or Marcuse, so can't judge how accurately Giddens represents their thinking, but found the ideas interesting.) Reich was against bourgeois marriage as a repressive, authoritarian institution. He believed that traditional monogamous marriage served to develop authoritarian traits of character, which in turn supported an exploitative social system. Despite Reich's reputation as a wackadoodle crackpot, there's clearly some truth to this.

Marcuse's idea was that sexual emancipation should not be considered the same thing as just hedonism. Sexual love becomes liberating in combination with respect for the other as an equal, which disrupts the old traditional patriarchalist (authoritarian) family structure and also paves the way for broader egalitarian social citizenship. However, when sexual permissiveness turns into objectifying others as commodities of pleasure, it becomes just another form of oppressiveness.

In the last chapter of the book, Giddens expands on these ideas to talk about how egalitarian relationships between people can both follow a model of democracy at the personal level and reinforce egalitarian democracy at the political level. For me, this all goes toward showing how humanist ethics is foundational for democracy and how healthy interpersonal relationships based on mutual respect model healthy democracy as a system of governance. This contrasts with domestic abuse and violence, which models authoritarian governance - a point also made in a book I read about the mindset of domestic abusers, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. The latter book was written by a clinical psychologist who had spent decades working with abusers, and has an insightful chapter where the author argues that the mindset of abusers is also reflected in systems of social and political oppression.

Giddens's book can also be considered in combination with another book I panned in a review a while back, Mark Regnerus's Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. Regnerus, as I pointed out, reveals himself as anti-individualist and authoritarian in his thinking, and his book revolves around contrasting Giddens's idea of the pure relationship with the "exchange" model of relationships - the more traditional idea of marriage as economic exchange. Regnerus loves the exchange model, is clearly nostalgic for the days when people could be said to "own" each other, and can't seem to get out of the dehumanizing idea of human beings as useful goods; Regnerus argues (obliquely, not directly) that the pure relationship model inevitably devolves into this commoditization of sex as consumption, and that the exchange model at least has the dignity of focusing on sexual exchange from a producer perspective instead of the consumer perspective.

I find Regnerus's views horrible, as I think real feminist emancipation is to treat women as human beings, not as objects, and it doesn't help to consider intimate relationships through the lens of economic production instead of as a consumer activity - the goal should be to go beyond such a limited view. Even while we recognize and concede that human beings will always see each other to some degree as useful means to various practical ends, there's also a humanist, ethical imperative to see each other as more than merely this, as ends in ourselves. Without this humanist respect for the sacredness of others' autonomy, it is all too easy to fall into authoritarian forms of relationship and governance in both the public and private spheres.

[Fernando · Rating 3 out of 5]

Es de estos libros que lees demasiado tarde porque ya han transcurrido y consolidado muchos de los cambios "novedosos" que menciona y por tanto parece una sociología de la obviedad un tanto tedioso. Pero esto no le quita ningún mérito, es muy interesante conocer todos los cambios emancipatorios de la sexualidad y de la sexualidad femenina de las últimas décadas por ahí donde fue escrito este libro, en los años noventa y que continúan consolidadonse. No puedo evitar mencionar a Eva Illouz y su sociología del amor que me parece tan acertado y revelador, esto porque Giddens trata el concepto de "relación pura", algo que no aparece en la literatura de Illouz y hasta suena demasiado ingenuo pero no por ello menos necesario. La relación pura seria una relación libre de constricciones, basadas en la libertad y la igualdad, pero lo que Illouz plantea es que el modelos de vinculos emocionales actuales actúan sobre modelos de consumo y objetivacion( amor liquido como diría Bauman) de la sexualidad muy alejados de los ideales de la relación pura de Giddens. Creo que el amor, si es que las parejas mas jovenes- de la orientacion sexual que sean-suelen emplear aún ese termino para referirse a sus vinculos emocionales, están imbuidos de prácticas sexuales y emocionales libertarias muy alejadas de los ideales de la fraternidad, dignidad o felicidad y son sustituidas por el placer, el consumo, el sexo o ideas más prácticas y efímeras como una cita de Tinder.
Giddens trata de varios temas, como la sexualidad, la homosexualidad, el lesbianismo, el matrimonio, el feminismo, el amor romántico, etc y combina el lenguaje ampuloso de la sociología con extractos de literatura terapeutica de masas, y el resultado es un menjunje compilatorio poco atractivo para quienes busquen profundidad en alguno de los temas que aborda. De todas formas puede ser un buen comienzo para quienes deseen algo muy generico de variados temas sobre los cambios en la sexualidad.

[Mie Sørensen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first 100 pages introduce some very interesting 5-star-worthy theories. Then suddenly he starts referring to Freud. Afterwards, he goes on a very odd tangent about lesbians.

I pray Giddens never tries to discuss the LGBTQ+ community again.

[Marta Peresada · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really like the concept of "pure relationship" - a relationship that serves no other purpose than fulfilling the needs and desires of people involved in it and which lasts just until both (or more) persons are happy with them. The analysis of the typical relationship from the past is very interesting. I also appreciate the clear and more or less straightforward writing. 
However, it seems that the author has some outdated views. For example, it is a bit surprising to find the idea that women can't be satisfied with one-night stands or short relationships as much as men or that women who do have some Freudish psychological issues. I also think that some of the suggestions on relationship styles in the LGBT+ community are not very relevant. 
But overall for me, it was worth reading. 

[Nicole · Rating 2 out of 5]

too many generalisations for my taste

[Paz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ehm. Sorry Antonio: mejor el título que el contenido.

[Viki Fernandez]

un libro más q se jode por meter a freud.....dicho esto no me he enterado de mucha cosa..habrá q darle otra vueltecilla tal vez

[Talea · Rating 1 out of 5]

Naja...

[Guilherme Smee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Diferentemente da maioria dos livros na área de sociologia, a prosa teórica de Anthony Giddens é bastante agradável de ser lida. Este livro poderia ser um apanhado histórico de como a sexualidade, o amor e o erotismo - ou, resumindo, a intimidade - foram encarados. Mas o autor nos coloca primeiro as questões prementes para depois traçar possíveis causas. Assim, ele explica entre muitas coisas como a autonomia acabou prejudicando a intimidade, principalmente no caso dos homens, que devem se provar "selfmade men" e não depender da ajuda de ninguém. Uma pesquisa me abismou dizendo que muitos homens não tinham amigos para contar suas intimidades e, quando tinham, esses amigos eram mulheres. Isso diz muito sobre nossa cultura, autocentrada, que valoriza a independência acima de qualquer coisa, e que não oferece chance nenhuma para a empatia e para os sentimentos. Elas os trata como se isso fosse sinal de fraqueza, sentimentos próprios a um ser inferior e abjeto que, segundo nossa cultura, seriam as mulheres. A "proclamação de independência" dos homens se deu antes das mulheres (anos 30 e 40 comparado com os anos 70 e 80 das mulheres) e, por isso, elas ainda precisam se afirmar como seres livres. O engraçado é que muitas mulheres acham bonito ser assim como os homens, apáticos e sem sentimentos, capazes de tudo para garantir sua individualidade e sua independência. Seria isso uma inversão de valores ou apenas uma forma de sublinhar a "inveja do pênis", uma vez que, como diz a feminista Luce Irigaray, as mulheres possuem um "buraco" no seu corpo e no seu âmago? Uma questão bastante inquietante, mas que eu deixo com vocês... Eu que não me arrisco a responder. Estou aqui só pra incomodar suas vidas! Bjokas! =*

[Monic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perubahan kondisi sosial merupakan basis dari semua
bentuk relasi personal. Peradaban manusia ke arah modernitas berlahan mengubah sistem sosial, instusi-instusi sosial dan nilai-nilai sosial, serta berdampak pada perubahan relasi intim manusia. Giddens secara spesifik melihat bagaimana
keintiman berjalan seiring dengan perubahan sosial. Terlebih-lebih kesetaraan gender yang mendapatkan ruang dalam realitas kehidupan sosial. Tanpa disadari,perkembangan keseharian semacam ini melahirkan sebuah revolusi seksualitas.

Ini tidak semata-mata mengubah kesetaraan dalam wilayah ekonomi dan politik, namun juga kesetaraan seksual dan emosional. Retaknya batasaan seksualitas semacam ini dapat
dipastikan membawa kontestasi antara dimensi sosiologis dan dimensi psikologis individu, membuka jurang emosional antara dua jenis kelamin yang berbeda serta berlahan mengubah bentuk relasi manusia. Relasi bergerak dalam putaran penyesuaian antara demokratisasi diri yang sesuai dengan demokratisasi publik.

Giddens memunculkan konsep relasi tulus / cinta murni yang merupakan relasi dengan dasar kesetaraan seksual dan emosional. Hubungan cinta murni semacam ini tidak lepas dari relasi cinta romantis yang merupakan perpaduan konsep relasi ideal sublime love (cinta luhur) dan kebebasan yang dibawa oleh passionate love (cinta penuh hasrat).

[Renato M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anthony Giddens, LA TRASFORMAZIONE DELL'INTIMITA'. Sessualità, amore ed erotismo nelle società moderne (il Mulino. p.216):

"Troppo spesso i sogni di amore romantico hanno spinto le donne alla sottomissione domestica. L'amore convergente presuppone la parità nei conti del dare e dell'avere affettivo, tanto più quanto il rapporto amoroso si avvicina al modello della relazione pura.L'amore cresce soltanto nella misura in cui aumenta il grado di intimità e ciascuno dei partner appare disponibile non solo a rivelare all'altro le proprie preoccupazioni ed i propri bisogni, ma anche ad essere vulnerabile nei suoi confronti. La dipendenza sentimentale nascosta dei maschi ha inibito la loro disponibilità e la loro capacità di essere vulnerabili" 8p.72)

Lettura fondamentale per capire le motivazioni profonde delle nostre crisi di relazione, di convivenza, di coppia e per comprendere i grandi cambiamenti della nostra intimità. Riflessioni chiari e semplici. Ottima la traduzione di Delia Tasso:a lei un ringraziamento particolare.

[Beth · Rating 3 out of 5]

For being a book that "will appeal to a large general audience" this didn't match my expectations. The writing style was very dry, long-winded and disjointed. With the exceptions of say, Foucault and Freud, most of the references were unfamiliar to me. The two chapters that captured my attention were "The Sociological Meaning of Codependence" and "Contradictions of the Pure Relationship". The rest was just so-so.

[Sophia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Transformation of Intimacy provides a comprehensive account of modern relationship dynamics. Giddens thought provoking offerings are always well justified. However his organization of the chapters, and content, isn't immediately evident.

[Elizabeth · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only read just over halfway and had to put it in the giveaway pile.
Been on my shelf for the last 2 and half years unread - bought after a particularly rough breakup and my young self thought a book like this would show me what went wrong. I hit snooze as soon as penis envy was discussed.

[Atila Demirkasımoğlu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Çok değerli bir yayın. Mahremiyetin nasıl ve neden dönüştüğünü ve gelecekte bu anlamda bizi nelerin beklediğini düşünmeye iten ve çıkarım verileri sunan bir kitap. Türkçe çevirisi fena değil.

[Gretchen Hoffman]

On haitus until graduation and I expand my academic endeavors to include nude picnics and musings on sensual foods. Sigh. . .

[Lauren]

Text book for human sexuality, read the whole thing and thought it was very interesting. Did not agree with everything.

[Dmitry · Rating 1 out of 5]

(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)

Академические работы на тему секса и/или любви часто бывают скучными, малопонятными и для обычного читателя, неактуальными в его повседневной жизни. Даже в качестве обычного образовательного материала, такие книги бессмысленные, ибо забываются очень быстро. Вот эта книга, с очень многообещающим названием, из их числа.

Книга написана довольно сложным языком, но при этом автор не раскрывает всей темы, ограничиваясь довольно поверхностным обзором, который можно в некоторых случаях назвать самоочевидным. Это странно, учитывая, что автор написал один из самых известных зарубежных учебником по социологии (который так и называется «Sociology»). В связи с этим возникает такой вопрос: насколько компетентен социолог в вопросах человеческой сексуальности? С одной стороны, социология, это наука об обществе, а романтические и сексуальные отношения между людьми как бы входят в сферу социологии. Однако с другой, есть целое направление – сексология – которое непосредственно изучает вышеназванные вопросы. Тогда возникает вопрос: может ли быть интимность без секса и если да, то какая область науки отвечает за это? Я пришёл к выводу, что неудача этой книги и этого автора как раз и состоит в том, что эта книга пыталась рассматривать интимность с самого неподходящего угла – социологического. А нужно рассматривать интимность с точки зрения психологии и сексологии. Да, автор упоминает Фрейда, но…Вы серьёзно? Фрейд в XXI веке? Так что как правильно заметили англоязычные читатели, автор выбирает довольно неоднозначные ресурсы, на которых строит свои взгляды. Да, Фрейд в данной книге не является доминирующей фигурой, но все же его частое присутствие (присутствие его идей), вызывает недоумение. Возможно присутствие другого философа – Фуко – выглядит более уместно, однако с моей точки зрения, это тоже довольно неоднозначно, учитывая, что Фуко является скорее философом, а не сексологом и психологом. Однако учитывая его книги «История сексуальности» славу, я допускаю, что спор автор с Фуко, уместен (в этой книге). Просто я ожидал увидеть более современный и более научный подход, т.е. рассматривание вопроса с точки зрения современной психологии, сексологии и истории.

В принципе, автор пытается рассматривать вопрос с точки зрения истории и тех изменений, что произошли с интимной областью человека, однако делает это автор ну очень ограничено. Я хочу сказать, что только автор начинает погружаться в одну тему, так уже вскоре ставит точку в ней и переходит к следующей. Именно из-за этого у меня возникло ощущение, что эта книга стала результатом исследований по социологии, когда у автора накопилось довольно много материала, напрямую с социологией не связанного и поэтому он решил этот не подходящий непосредственно к социологии текст, употребить где-то ещё. В итоге у нас и появилась такая поверхностная книга о человеческой интимности (с точки зрения общества). Кстати да, всё в книге подчинено именно этому главному фактору – рассмотрение человеческой интимности через призму общества. Увы, но чтобы написать книгу о человеческой интимности, недостаточно использовать только исторические справки по этому вопросу, необходимы знания психологии, как основного фундамента, на которой строится человеческая интимность.

Хотя, если следовать идеям Фрейда и даже другим учёным, можно также прийти к заключению, что интимность есть продукт общества, а не психологии и сексологии, ведь у разных народов разные практики интимности. С одной стороны, это верно. Однако с другой, все общества имеют одну и туже модель сексуальных отношений, пусть и различающуюся в деталях. К примеру, нет такого общества, где бы женщины играли бы активную роль, в то время как мужчины – пассивную. Другой пример – институт брака, который одинаков у всех народов. Так что рассматривать вопрос человеческой интимности в отрыве от психологии и сексологии, ошибочно. Но именно это и делает автор.

Ну и последнее, что важно понимать об этой книге, это дата её издания. Книга была издана в США в 1992 году. Пусть это и не 80-ые или 70-вы и даже не эпоха Фрейда, но всё же книга была написана довольно давно. Сегодня, особенно с появлением Интернета, общество изменилось и, следовательно, изменилась тема интимности. Хотя, главный недостаток книги является её излишняя академичность, поверхностность и отсутствие других наук, которые непосредственно связаны с рассматриваемым вопросом.

Academic works on the subject of sex and/or love are often boring, difficult to understand, and, for the average reader, irrelevant to their daily lives. Even as ordinary educational material, such books are meaningless because they are forgotten very quickly. This book, with a very promising title, is one of them.

The book is written in a rather complex language, but, at the same time, the author does not reveal the whole topic, limiting himself to a rather superficial overview, which can be called self-evident in some cases. This is strange, considering that the author has written one of the most famous sociology textbooks (which is called "Sociology"). This raises the following question: how competent is a sociologist in matters of human sexuality? On the one hand, sociology is the science of society, and romantic and sexual relations between people are, as it were, within the scope of sociology. However, on the other hand, there is a whole field (sexology) that directly studies the above-mentioned issues. The question then arises: can there be intimacy without sex, and if so, what field of science is responsible for it? I have concluded that the failure of this book and this author is precisely that this book tried to consider intimacy from the most inappropriate angle - sociological. But we need to look at intimacy from the perspective of psychology and sexology. Yes, the author mentions Freud, but...are you serious? Freud in the 21st century? So, as English-speaking readers have correctly noticed, the author chooses rather ambiguous resources on which to base his views. Yes, Freud is not the dominant figure in this book, but still, his frequent presence (the presence of his ideas) is perplexing. Perhaps the presence of another philosopher, Foucault, seems more appropriate, but, from my point of view, it is also rather ambiguous, given that Foucault is a philosopher rather than a sexologist and psychologist. However, given his book "History of Sexuality" fame, I concede that the author's argument with Foucault is appropriate (in this book). I just expected to see a more modern and scientific approach, i.e., looking at the issue from the perspective of modern psychology, sexology, and history.

In principle, the author tries to consider the issue from the point of view of history and the changes that have occurred in the intimate area of man, but the author does it very limitedly. I mean, as soon as the author starts diving into one topic, he soon puts a stop to it and moves on to the next. It is because of this that I got the feeling that this book was the result of sociological research when the author had accumulated quite a lot of material not directly related to sociology and therefore decided to use this text, which is not directly applicable to sociology, elsewhere. As a result, we have such a superficial book about human intimacy (from the point of view of society). By the way, yes, everything in the book is subordinated to this main factor - viewing human intimacy through the prism of society. Alas, to write a book on human intimacy, it is not enough to use only historical references on the subject - one needs knowledge of psychology as the basic foundation on which human intimacy is built.

If we follow the ideas of Freud and even other scholars, we can also conclude that intimacy is a product of society and not of psychology and sexology because different people have different practices of intimacy. On the one hand, this is true. However, on the other hand, all societies have the same pattern of sexual relations, albeit differing in details. For example, there is no society where women play an active role while men play a passive role. Another example is the institution of marriage, which is the same in all nations. So, to consider the issue of human intimacy in isolation from psychology and sexology is erroneous. But that is exactly what the author does.

Well, the last thing that is important to understand about this book is its publication date. The book was published in the United States in 1992. Today, especially with the advent of the internet, society has changed and thus, the topic of intimacy has changed. However, the main drawback of the book is its overly academic, superficiality, and lack of other sciences that are directly related to the issue at hand.

[Lyra Montoya · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked this more than the book for the previous week, but I still find a lot of issues in this book.

The writing in the book at large attempts to remain flat and neutral, and to not betray a partiality in the authorial intent. He is merely collecting and saying things that are "true" and "indisputable" so to speak. It is rather scarce that Giddens' makes his own thoughts known, and perhaps those are moments of fragmentation of his authorial persona more than anything else. The privileged status of the skeptic is shown throughout this book in that Giddens' rarely makes an statement without a form of qualification such as "there is much debate" or "One might argue..." and similar.

The extensiveness of the treatment of Freud is such that the section is not enclosed and isolated to quotation. The discussion and reference to Freud somehow breaks free of that ontological difference of source, and ceases to exist as a separate/ external author from Giddens here. In this realm of
power and academic theory, Freud as an unavoidably massive existence in the neighboring space delocates the primary author of the text into one in service/ function/ relation to Freud rather than whatever is more primarily espoused as the discussion.

The final chapter discussing "intimacy as democracy" reads really oddly. It immediately feels really fucking rich coming from a guy who is part of the house of lords, in that it is aligned through an external study that he oversees from outside this structure of democracy/ intimacy. I imagine he fully believes himself an active(ly individuated and instantiated) agent of democracy, but this conflict is apparently either unknown to him, or intentionally ignored. Due to the neutral/passive/authoritative/factual voice Giddens' takes throughout the book, it is unclear if he even is convinced in this project of democratizing love that he is ostensibly formally proposing in writing this book. I do see clear ties between the agential/ reflexive/ autonomous subject that Giddens describes and the figures discussed in All Incomplete, but the importance of property and individuation is assumed as necessary (and good) in this book.

Much of the writing on democracy is also dubious: a member of the house of lords will of course state that "authority is justifiable to the degree that it recognises the principle of autonomy,..."(p.186) when he is part of the body that both has said authority and the capacity to decide who can be autonomous (Giddens proposes being "tough on immigration" as a tactic to mitigate the undefeatable bogeyman of the far right) which is a clear implementation of the racial calculus and political arithmetic as Christina Sharpe describes that in this instance weighs the worth of the life of the immigrant and refugee against the opinion and untouchable comfort and pleased-ness of the voting citizen. This isn't a huge surprise given that he fundamentally believes in capitalism as a positive structure (it certainly is for him)


The premise of usufruct is taken here as a necessary and justified given, rather than a tool of control and capital. I don't disagree with the premise that the agential/ reflexive/ individuated subject changed similarly in parallel with forms of intimacy and love, but I do reject Giddens' proposed teleology to this change in forms of love and intimacy as lib shit.

[Eduardo Juan · Rating 5 out of 5]

La importancia del texto radica en dos de sus factores: el método y su contenido. En cuanto al método, se debe recordar que se trata de un estudio socio-antropológico en torno al fenómeno de la sexualidad y su desarrollo en la modernidad y post-modernidad, por tanto, me parece acertado el enfoque que adopta Giddens, pues permite una mejor aprehensión de los factores que influyen en este terreno de lo humano, por lo cual se vale de estudiar la bibliografía que ha existido en torno a este tema: desde las posturas psicoanalíticas hasta la revisión de textos sobre superación personal. En cuanto a su contenido, pese a tratar la realidad que sobre este fenómeno ocurría en la década de los 90's, es relativamente reciente, lo cual nos permite a los lectores de hoy, 02 de octubre de 2024, hacer un balance de la situación y postular nuestra realidad a través del marco que se nos propone por Giddens, verificando si en realidad las cosas han tendido hacía una liberación o, por el contrarío, han transcurrido su curso normal hacía radicalización por parte de quienes defienden la idea de que existen roles dentro de los géneros establecidos por natura y que no pueden ser contradichos, adoptando, así, una actitud reaccionaria y peligrosa ante los cambios que tienden hacía la liberación de la sexualidad.
No deja de ser interesante como un fenómeno de este calado nos sea tan importante aún en los días que transcurrimos, ya que nos permite conocer cuales son las causas de muchas de las conductas de personas que podemos ver en Internet, como puede ser la comunidad de hombres que reafirman y promulgan una masculinidad, la cual, a su vez, se sustenta de una serie de valores morales y comportamentales que terminan en una violencia contra las mujeres. En ese sentido, lo interesante del estudio es el hecho de que sirve como herramienta para revelar en entornos más locales cómo dichos fenómenos se representan en ellos, cómo las relaciones se desenvuelven y generan dinámicas propias de comportamiento sexual (en un sentido extenso).

[Serhat Kaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Üzüntü, terapi literatürünün çok önem verdiği bir konu. Mesela, Stephen Tillo ve Connie Church'un sunduğu "aşk şoku" çözümlemesini ele alalım. Gullo aşk şoku görüşünü, genellikle cephe şoku diye bilinen savaş yorgunluğundan mustarip Vietnam gazileri arasında gerçekleştirdiği terapik çalışmadan geliştirmiş. Vietnam'dan dönen askerler zihin karışıklığından, hislerinin uyuşmasından ve savaş arkadaşları hariç kimseyle yakın ilişkiler kuramamaktan şikayetçilermiş. Gullo askerlerin deneyimi ile ciddi aşk ilişkileri sona eren kişilerin tepkileri arasında paralellikler bulmuş. Bu karşılaştırma savaş yorgunluğunun yarattığı gerginliği önemsizleştiriyormuş gibi gözükebilir ama aslında yerleşik bir ilişkinin bitmesine verilen tepkiler bazen neredeyse aynı yoğunluktadır ve bunlardan kurtulmak aynı uzunlukla zaman alır. Bir ilişki sona erdiğinde, "terk eden" kişi için bile, diğerinin imgesi, onunla ilgili alışkanlıklar ve yeniden uzlaşılabileceği beklentisi senelerce sürebilir. Üzüntü, aksi takdirde güncel müptelalık özellikleri haline dönüşebilen alışkanlıklardan kurtulmanın şartıdır. Aşk şokunun, geçilmesi aylar alabilen bir "psikolojik seyahat zamanı" vardır ama ne kadar sürdüğü, bireyin tekrar işlemesi gereken hatıralarla arasındaki duygusal ilişkinin düzeyine göre değişir. Kopuşu kabullenip "veda etmek" normalde ancak ayrılmanın sonraki evrelerinde, acı ve suçlama duygularıyla yeterince başa çıkıldığında gerçekleşir.

[Peter Sprigg · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is somewhat of a history of the Sexual Revolution (at least up until 1992 when it was published). I read it because a book by the distinguished family scholar Mark Regnerus had cited several of its concepts. However, this is a rather dense, academic piece of writing. If you know the names Michel Foucault, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich and would like an analysis of their thought, this might be the book for you. If you are a more ordinary reader like me, I recommend something by Regnerus himself ("Cheap Sex"), or more recently, "The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self" by Carl Trueman.

[Chloe Hunte · Rating 4 out of 5]

“They’d had sex and they’d gone mad” 4.5⭐️
Love love loved this book, was nice to read some sociological theory again. There are brilliant musings on gender, sexuality, emotional repression and the overall loss of feeling that characterises our (post)modern era. Not only is there theory but Giddens offers new ways of adopting sexuality—he proposes eroticism instead of ‘sexuality’—and ways of being in all types of loving relationships. A lot of his work is grounded in psychotherapy also. Some chapters towards the end felt weak (particularly 8&9) compared to its predecessors but he tied it all in and brought me back on board for the concluding chapter.

[Pierre · Rating 4 out of 5]

The way I rate books:
5 stars: I would absolutely recommend this book to all my closest friends; it's a gem
4 stars: great work, a book that will stick with me and that I would enjoy reading again.
3 stars: good book but I wouldn't spend time reading it again.
2 stars: not worth reading, I lost my time... I didn't learn or feel anything apart from boredom
1 star: this is shit. How can you have respect for your readers and write something like this?

[Sumeyye Cengel]

Alanın içinden biriyseniz anlamanızın daha kolay olur kanaatindeyim zira cinsellik ve algısı üzerine felsefi birçok tartışma ve görüş var. İlk defa duyduğunuz şeyleri bağlama oturtup bir sonuç çıkarmakta zorlanıyorsunuz. Gerçi Giddens kendi sonucunu açıkça beyan ediyor.
Yine de üzerine gerçekten çokça okunması ve tartışılması gereken bir konu.
Vicdan azabı çeke çeke alanım dışı şeyleri okumaya devam edersem yeniden döneceklerimden

[Bohdan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Возможно, это недостаток русского перевода, но мне показалось что автор специльно выбирает сложные термины, вместо простых и доступных к пониманию.
В остальном - в книге очень много интересных мыслей и выводов (при том, что опубликована она была аж в 1993), которые можно откопать под грудой излишней терминологии.

[Maria Eugênia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vou ser sincera, eu estava acompanhando até entrar Freud na parada. Depois disso eu tive dificuldade de acompanhar a discussão. Mas gostei sim do livro, sempre quis lê-lo desde adolescente e acho que a discussão sobre a transformação da intimidade e da expressão sexual nas sociedades modernas é um tema que me interessa muito.

[Abbi]

This is a book I read for my uni essay but I read all of it and considering the essay is taking up all of my casual reading time I’m counting it towards my yearly goal.

Not going to rate this but as far as sociological literature goes this was quite accessible and fairly easy to read.

[Nik]

Čisto razmerje /.../ se nanaša na situacijo, kjer dva stopita v družabni stik zaradi stika samega, zaradi tistega, kar lahko vsaka oseba dobi iz daljšega druženja z drugo osebo; in ki traja le, če obe strani menita, da je obojestransko zadovoljivo

[Nrzagaray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ni siquiera quiero pensar en que tuve que fumarme este libro por estúpido… pero bno equis está bastante bueno y comprehensivo sobre sexualidad/genero (aunque no hace esta distinción en realidad) se enfoca más q nada en los mensies