What do you think?
Rate this book
Rethinking Sex: A Provocation
Part searing examination, part call to arms—a bold case against modern sexual ethics, from young Washington Post columnist Christine Emba.
For years now, modern-day sexual ethics has held that “anything goes” when it comes to sex—as long as everyone says yes, and does so enthusiastically. So why, even when consent has been ascertained, are so many of our sexual experiences filled with frustration, and disappointment, even shame?
The truth is that the rules that make up today’s consent-only sexual code may actually be the cause of our sexual malaise—not the solution. In Rethinking Sex, reporter Christine Emba shows how consent is a good ethical floor but a terrible ceiling. She spells out the cultural, historical, and psychological forces that have warped our idea of sex, what is permitted, and what is considered “safe.” In visiting critical points in recent years—from #MeToo and the Aziz Ansari scandal, to the phenomenal response to “Cat Person”—she reveals how a consent-only view of sex has hijacked our ability to form authentic and long-lasting connections, exposing us further to chronic isolation and resentment.
Reaching back to the wisdom of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Andrea Dworkin, and drawing from sociological studies, interviews with college students, and poignant examples from her own life, Emba calls for a more humane philosophy, one that starts with consent but accounts for the very real emotional, mental, social, and political implications of sex—even, she argues, if it means saying no to certain sexual practices or challenging societal expectations altogether.
More than a bold reassessment of modern norms, Rethinking Sex invites us to imagine what it means to will the good of others, and in turn, attain greater affirmation, fulfillment, and satisfaction for ourselves.
For years now, modern-day sexual ethics has held that “anything goes” when it comes to sex—as long as everyone says yes, and does so enthusiastically. So why, even when consent has been ascertained, are so many of our sexual experiences filled with frustration, and disappointment, even shame?
The truth is that the rules that make up today’s consent-only sexual code may actually be the cause of our sexual malaise—not the solution. In Rethinking Sex, reporter Christine Emba shows how consent is a good ethical floor but a terrible ceiling. She spells out the cultural, historical, and psychological forces that have warped our idea of sex, what is permitted, and what is considered “safe.” In visiting critical points in recent years—from #MeToo and the Aziz Ansari scandal, to the phenomenal response to “Cat Person”—she reveals how a consent-only view of sex has hijacked our ability to form authentic and long-lasting connections, exposing us further to chronic isolation and resentment.
Reaching back to the wisdom of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Andrea Dworkin, and drawing from sociological studies, interviews with college students, and poignant examples from her own life, Emba calls for a more humane philosophy, one that starts with consent but accounts for the very real emotional, mental, social, and political implications of sex—even, she argues, if it means saying no to certain sexual practices or challenging societal expectations altogether.
More than a bold reassessment of modern norms, Rethinking Sex invites us to imagine what it means to will the good of others, and in turn, attain greater affirmation, fulfillment, and satisfaction for ourselves.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published February 8, 2022
167 people are currently reading
3623 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 - 30 of 238 reviews
May 27, 2022
My summary of Emba’s argument (these thoughts are hers–mine follow!):
Because women are less powerful than men in multiple ways, women often give technical consent to certain sexual acts (choking and anal sex are her main examples) which they don’t really want, and then women have a bad time and feel bad afterward. The practice of consent is failing at remedying this situation because it only establishes whether a woman is technically OK with having sex, but it doesn’t establish an understanding with her partner of what will make the sex enjoyable for her. (Emba briefly acknowledges that a higher standard of *enthusiastic* consent has emerged, but then dismisses that rather off-handedly.) Basically, women aren’t going to be able to speak up for themselves around sex and men aren’t going to be able to listen, and that's the way it is. So, the solution is for *society* to establish norms about which sexual practices are “good” and to loudly critique those acts which are not “good,” so that a woman going into a sexual situation can at least have some baseline understanding of what might happen to her.
My thoughts:
It makes no sense that Emba jumps from “often women end up having bad sex because men exploit their more powerful status” (true) to “non-vanilla sex practices are what’s ruining sex for women” (what?). Does she think a woman never had a terrible time during missionary? It also baffles me that she blames women’s bad sexual experiences these days on the liberalization of our sexual attitudes over the past few decades. Does she think that sex hasn’t been widely bad for women wherever patriarchy reigns for thousands of years?
Emba’s justification for why it is so urgent to publicly “critique” types of sex which aren’t “good” is that sexual behavior bleeds over into the rest of life–e.g., power exchange sex play perpetuates inequality outside the bedroom. Come on–what’s more likely to perpetuate gender inequality: Two people being kinky in the bedroom? Or society giving up on a woman ever having the power to own her “no”?
Emba writes a lot about the importance of honoring our humanity, but then comes to a really inhumane conclusion: That we should give up hope of people getting better at talking about what kind of sex they want, and instead use public shaming to control what they do. Her remedy is especially inhumane to women, because think about it–what is *actually* going to happen if we increasingly shame certain sexual acts? Are more-powerful men going to get in trouble when they do those acts? Or are less-powerful women going to be even more stigmatized for participating in them?
What is it that Emba wants us to “rethink,” really? She wants us to rethink whether we women really have the power to make sexual decisions for ourselves. And she wants us to rethink whether we really want to fight to keep and grow our power.
No thanks!
Because women are less powerful than men in multiple ways, women often give technical consent to certain sexual acts (choking and anal sex are her main examples) which they don’t really want, and then women have a bad time and feel bad afterward. The practice of consent is failing at remedying this situation because it only establishes whether a woman is technically OK with having sex, but it doesn’t establish an understanding with her partner of what will make the sex enjoyable for her. (Emba briefly acknowledges that a higher standard of *enthusiastic* consent has emerged, but then dismisses that rather off-handedly.) Basically, women aren’t going to be able to speak up for themselves around sex and men aren’t going to be able to listen, and that's the way it is. So, the solution is for *society* to establish norms about which sexual practices are “good” and to loudly critique those acts which are not “good,” so that a woman going into a sexual situation can at least have some baseline understanding of what might happen to her.
My thoughts:
It makes no sense that Emba jumps from “often women end up having bad sex because men exploit their more powerful status” (true) to “non-vanilla sex practices are what’s ruining sex for women” (what?). Does she think a woman never had a terrible time during missionary? It also baffles me that she blames women’s bad sexual experiences these days on the liberalization of our sexual attitudes over the past few decades. Does she think that sex hasn’t been widely bad for women wherever patriarchy reigns for thousands of years?
Emba’s justification for why it is so urgent to publicly “critique” types of sex which aren’t “good” is that sexual behavior bleeds over into the rest of life–e.g., power exchange sex play perpetuates inequality outside the bedroom. Come on–what’s more likely to perpetuate gender inequality: Two people being kinky in the bedroom? Or society giving up on a woman ever having the power to own her “no”?
Emba writes a lot about the importance of honoring our humanity, but then comes to a really inhumane conclusion: That we should give up hope of people getting better at talking about what kind of sex they want, and instead use public shaming to control what they do. Her remedy is especially inhumane to women, because think about it–what is *actually* going to happen if we increasingly shame certain sexual acts? Are more-powerful men going to get in trouble when they do those acts? Or are less-powerful women going to be even more stigmatized for participating in them?
What is it that Emba wants us to “rethink,” really? She wants us to rethink whether we women really have the power to make sexual decisions for ourselves. And she wants us to rethink whether we really want to fight to keep and grow our power.
No thanks!
July 15, 2025
I appreciated reading Emba's thoughts on how we as a culture might rethink the ways we practice, talk about, and understand sex. To be honest, as someone who believes that sex is meant to be pleasurable, healing, bonding, restorative, generative—and practiced within marriage—it was incredibly discouraging to see how low the bar has dropped. I am grieved that so many young women are having marginal sex that they do not want, with people they do not love, on a regular basis. Women (and men) need to understand that having lots of unwanted sex is disintegrating and demoralizing. Consent should not be the main, or only criteria for when sex is OK (which is one of Emba's points). If it is, way too many women will lose agency and succumb to the pressure of giving men what they want regardless. (And yes, I'm well aware that some women are more than content to engage in sex as a form of recreation. However, I think most want more than that.)
In a book that highlights one of the problems of post-modernism (no one wants to come off as being judgmental/conservative so no one is willing to challenge anyone else), I wish Emba had been willing to take more risks and encourage those in her generation to make better choices. She has the insight and authority to do so. I was also a bit flabbergasted that the topic of pornography and how it has contributed to broken sexuality was so late in the book, so short, and to some extent, so morally agnostic. There's much research showing how pornography use changes thought patterns, becomes habitual and increasingly hard core, blocks men from being willing or knowing how to engage with real women, and on and on. I'm not sure why she failed to include any of this research when her book utilized research in so many other areas. Recommended with reservations.
In a book that highlights one of the problems of post-modernism (no one wants to come off as being judgmental/conservative so no one is willing to challenge anyone else), I wish Emba had been willing to take more risks and encourage those in her generation to make better choices. She has the insight and authority to do so. I was also a bit flabbergasted that the topic of pornography and how it has contributed to broken sexuality was so late in the book, so short, and to some extent, so morally agnostic. There's much research showing how pornography use changes thought patterns, becomes habitual and increasingly hard core, blocks men from being willing or knowing how to engage with real women, and on and on. I'm not sure why she failed to include any of this research when her book utilized research in so many other areas. Recommended with reservations.
March 8, 2024
This book really pissed me off! I should have expected it, considering that the author says in the intro that she was raised evangelical and then converted to Catholicism! But I thought I'd give her a try anyway.
I think the one good takeaway you can have from this book is that sex should be done in a more caring way. That's about it. Cannot and will not argue with that. Caring about yourself and your desires, but also caring about your sexual partner's desires and level of comfort. All good. HOWEVER! She never actually talks about how that care would look like! Because the only conclusion she is willing to draw is: 'What if the answer was to have less casual sex? For that matter, what if the answer was to have sex under the standard of love?'
There is no talk about caring sexual practices, communication, drawing boundaries in the beginning, after care or many other possible things she could have talked about. All she wants is people to have less casual sex and all she wants to say is that people do too many degrading things and should maybe just do the acts that she finds loving / non-degrading.
The author tells us from the beginning she will ignore anything outside of straight sex. People on the asexual spectrum are not mentioned at all, and queer people are mentioned in passing, in a strange way (Having adopted the “born this way” ethos to support LGBTQ rights in particular, many of us are loath to pull back and suggest that desire is mutable. We don’t want to suggest that some orientations might be a choice, and risk those groups’ marginalization. We are uncomfortable imposing our personal views on others; in a free society, morality is seen as a private affair. wtf does this even mean? Cause it feels very queerphobic to me!)
Moving on, the author acknowledges that sexual assault is something that is particularly bad and used as a weapon. But she assumes that because this is especially bad, then sex is also something special. She fails to mention that sexual assault isn't about sex, but it's about power. And that's kind of the distinction that falls between the cracks at all time.
She then lumps in a bunch of stuff that she feels has gone way too into mainstream sex, heavily implying that these are the things we should be free to call wrong and draw social norms around them being wrong. Whether it’s surprise choking, anal sex, polyamory, or increasingly dangerous kinks, it seems like things are on the table that simply weren’t even a decade ago. But see, she is making the same wrong assumption here. Surprise choking is obviously wrong, because it's a surprise. But when it comes to the other acts she mentions, she does not acknowledged that once again that when they turn out wrong, it is still a question of power, and not one of sex.
"It may be that certain sex acts are excellent for bringing us to orgasm while also putting on a pedestal some of our morally worst desires. But as a society, we should be able to point out that some states of mind are better than others, that we might want to work on satisfying certain emotions but also curbing others."
She quotes fucking Andrea Dworkin uncritically, and Steven Pinker too. Actually, everything she quotes is there just to support her worldview. For instance, she also quotes Sophie Lewis to her own ends, but Sophie Lewis has a book called Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation. However, Emba does not critique in any way the neoliberal family structure (but does use anticapitalist ideas as much as she needs to support her thesis, and pays lip service to how marriage was a contract, etc, etc, but never goes into the nuance of anything). There are very interesting conversations to be had here, but she just misses them completely.
Emba seems to have 0 curiosity about why people engage in the sexual acts she despises, like anything kink-related. She assumes that it’s because people want to be degraded / to degrade, that people want to dominate and feel power over someone. Very reductive. She quotes this article written by a woman who is annoyed that protagonists have rough sex or kink in stuff like Normal People. See? This is why I was so upset at how kink is portrayed in Normal People, because it leads to these giant misunderstandings. Once more, when done *with care*, power dynamics in the bedroom can subvert gender roles and help explore certain issues. It is a space of play. When kink is done with care, the submissive person is the one who has most of the power. Christine Emba, think of the possibilities, damn it!
Wisely (but frustratingly), Emba does not mention sex work at all. She treats sex as something special where you (read: women) are coerced to do things by men. She fails to see so many more axis of coercion, like how capitalism exploits bodies in modern work environments. She grazes the topic of: sometimes, when people think they need sex, they actually want to be touched, to connect. But she fails at talking about how these systems make us feel like romantic relationships are the only ways to get touch and connection. She is only thinking of The Couple here. She is taking The Couple as 'natural'.
She says that before online dating, there was community mediation in dating, cause people would know the shit you do to your dates. But she ignores the fact that it was a highly imperfect system, where men were excused more often than not. Cause it's about power! Not sex. But okay.
The chapter 'Sex is Spiritual' is just. so. bad. And I'm the kind of bitch who does think that it can be spiritual and I've had that (but not as Emba would like), so if she doesn't convince me... Idek.
Anyway, yeah, I think this is low-key a conservative book, because it only kinda checks off systemic critiques off a list and doesn't do much to offer alternatives, other than: don't do casual sex! (This made me angry, gonna go cool off now)
I think the one good takeaway you can have from this book is that sex should be done in a more caring way. That's about it. Cannot and will not argue with that. Caring about yourself and your desires, but also caring about your sexual partner's desires and level of comfort. All good. HOWEVER! She never actually talks about how that care would look like! Because the only conclusion she is willing to draw is: 'What if the answer was to have less casual sex? For that matter, what if the answer was to have sex under the standard of love?'
There is no talk about caring sexual practices, communication, drawing boundaries in the beginning, after care or many other possible things she could have talked about. All she wants is people to have less casual sex and all she wants to say is that people do too many degrading things and should maybe just do the acts that she finds loving / non-degrading.
The author tells us from the beginning she will ignore anything outside of straight sex. People on the asexual spectrum are not mentioned at all, and queer people are mentioned in passing, in a strange way (Having adopted the “born this way” ethos to support LGBTQ rights in particular, many of us are loath to pull back and suggest that desire is mutable. We don’t want to suggest that some orientations might be a choice, and risk those groups’ marginalization. We are uncomfortable imposing our personal views on others; in a free society, morality is seen as a private affair. wtf does this even mean? Cause it feels very queerphobic to me!)
Moving on, the author acknowledges that sexual assault is something that is particularly bad and used as a weapon. But she assumes that because this is especially bad, then sex is also something special. She fails to mention that sexual assault isn't about sex, but it's about power. And that's kind of the distinction that falls between the cracks at all time.
She then lumps in a bunch of stuff that she feels has gone way too into mainstream sex, heavily implying that these are the things we should be free to call wrong and draw social norms around them being wrong. Whether it’s surprise choking, anal sex, polyamory, or increasingly dangerous kinks, it seems like things are on the table that simply weren’t even a decade ago. But see, she is making the same wrong assumption here. Surprise choking is obviously wrong, because it's a surprise. But when it comes to the other acts she mentions, she does not acknowledged that once again that when they turn out wrong, it is still a question of power, and not one of sex.
"It may be that certain sex acts are excellent for bringing us to orgasm while also putting on a pedestal some of our morally worst desires. But as a society, we should be able to point out that some states of mind are better than others, that we might want to work on satisfying certain emotions but also curbing others."
She quotes fucking Andrea Dworkin uncritically, and Steven Pinker too. Actually, everything she quotes is there just to support her worldview. For instance, she also quotes Sophie Lewis to her own ends, but Sophie Lewis has a book called Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Care and Liberation. However, Emba does not critique in any way the neoliberal family structure (but does use anticapitalist ideas as much as she needs to support her thesis, and pays lip service to how marriage was a contract, etc, etc, but never goes into the nuance of anything). There are very interesting conversations to be had here, but she just misses them completely.
Emba seems to have 0 curiosity about why people engage in the sexual acts she despises, like anything kink-related. She assumes that it’s because people want to be degraded / to degrade, that people want to dominate and feel power over someone. Very reductive. She quotes this article written by a woman who is annoyed that protagonists have rough sex or kink in stuff like Normal People. See? This is why I was so upset at how kink is portrayed in Normal People, because it leads to these giant misunderstandings. Once more, when done *with care*, power dynamics in the bedroom can subvert gender roles and help explore certain issues. It is a space of play. When kink is done with care, the submissive person is the one who has most of the power. Christine Emba, think of the possibilities, damn it!
Wisely (but frustratingly), Emba does not mention sex work at all. She treats sex as something special where you (read: women) are coerced to do things by men. She fails to see so many more axis of coercion, like how capitalism exploits bodies in modern work environments. She grazes the topic of: sometimes, when people think they need sex, they actually want to be touched, to connect. But she fails at talking about how these systems make us feel like romantic relationships are the only ways to get touch and connection. She is only thinking of The Couple here. She is taking The Couple as 'natural'.
She says that before online dating, there was community mediation in dating, cause people would know the shit you do to your dates. But she ignores the fact that it was a highly imperfect system, where men were excused more often than not. Cause it's about power! Not sex. But okay.
The chapter 'Sex is Spiritual' is just. so. bad. And I'm the kind of bitch who does think that it can be spiritual and I've had that (but not as Emba would like), so if she doesn't convince me... Idek.
Anyway, yeah, I think this is low-key a conservative book, because it only kinda checks off systemic critiques off a list and doesn't do much to offer alternatives, other than: don't do casual sex! (This made me angry, gonna go cool off now)
March 23, 2022
If introspective “emotion-based” sex education could take the form of a book, Rethinking Sex would be the form I’d imagine. Though meandering and repetitive in part, the ideas it conveys are idealized and respond directly to where men and women have found ourselves to be in the here and now, post sex revolution and the #metoo movement. That being said, the book is non-intersectional and (admitted by the author early on) heteronormative. This is not the book for anyone who lies outside the cis sphere, nor is it particularly aimed for someone who finds themselves in the later stages (ie. married with children) of their sexual lives. I found myself reading this in a more reflective manner, as it was not entirely relevant to my current needs. Rethinking Sex is insightful, for sure, but it is written for a very, very specific reader who is unattached and still in search of that ever-elusive life of meaningful (sexual) connection.
November 20, 2023
The “provocation” in Emba’s title is a return to good, old-fashioned sexual ethics, and I’m here for it! Rethinking Sex invites an oversexualized, self-objectifying, porn-addled, and spiritually exhausted generation of Tinder users to reconceptualize heterosexuality beyond the legal metric of consent and interrogate assumptions, practices, and ways of engaging the other, especially since dating now depends on a digital marketplace in which bodies are presented for risk-free consumption. In a nutshell, Emba asks whether people’s sexual pursuits are based on mutuality (and seeking the good for the other) instead of selfishly quenching desires that have been produced and shaped by capitalism. The prose is wonderfully readable, and, while I don’t think “we” (I kept wondering throughout who exactly that invoked “we” consists of) should start sorting sexual acts into “good” and “bad,” I laud Emba’s pop-feminist return to the warnings of Dworkin and MacKinnon, especially since we now seem to have data suggesting that everything-goes hookup culture tends to disadvantage women and leaves people overall feeling empty and exploited. As usual, I wish the book had been longer, denser, and more deeply theorized. It’s a long-form essay rather than a scholarly intervention (or even pop feminist exploration), and I’d like to see approaches to this question to be deeply steeped in feminist philosophy. Moreover, my sense was that Emba’s target audience is comprised of privileged millennial and Gen Z urbanites, and that her message is directed at young and straight feminists who haven’t learned yet that even consensual sex can harm the spirit—and the body, of course. While I found myself nodding along for long stretches of the book, I couldn’t help but wonder if Emba wasn't overstating her case. Surely there are tons of people out there who have always known the dangers of treating sex like a commodity and who have silently practiced caution. Still, Emba provides language for a new mainstream sexual ethics that is sorely needed.
September 4, 2022
this is going to be long but i have such mixed feelings about this book.
i think the author had some good and important points:
1. all non-consensual sex is bad but not all consensual sex is good so maybe we need to be thinking beyond just consent when it comes to sexual encounters (ch 1)
2. “…if you think you’re lucky that he was nice to you during the encounter, and you never expected to have an orgasm, or you never even really expected to have pleasure, then you’re consenting to a really different act than someone else…“ (ch 4)
3. young people who are lonely often turn to sex when it isn’t actually what they want/need, and that’s a problem (ch 1)
4. the importance placed on having care-free, no-emotions-attached sex is often problematic (ch 2-3)
5. rarely are both parties on an equal playing field regarding power and risk when it comes to heterosexual monogamous sex. women bear the majority of the fear regarding both wanted and unwanted pregnancies, birth control, and sexual violence. also, bad sex for straight women is (usually) far worse than bad sex for straight men (ch 4)
6. harmful sexual practices are often exempt from criticism behind the “iron curtain” of consent, but we should be reimagining desire to not be based on subjugation and dominance (ch 7)
7. basically, modern dating/hookup culture is bad for all, especially women, and needs to change
HOWEVER:
1. it was SO repetitive and could honestly just have been a long-form essay
2. it only focused on heterosexual dating/hookups (and was homophobic in its anti-anal statements)
3. there was strong ~women are more emotional than men~ vibes. which goes against the thesis that hookup culture is bad for everyone? and was just annoying
4. felt oversimplified sometimes. i don’t doubt the author’s experiences, nor those of who she interviewed, but they are just SOME experiences, and the author sometimes wrote as if they were everyone’s. like “we” feel a certain way
5. heavily implied that the solution for all of these problems, including high rates of assault, is for women to have less casual sex. which is so victim-blamey and makes me want to scream (ch 9)
so i really don’t know. two stars i guess lol
i think the author had some good and important points:
1. all non-consensual sex is bad but not all consensual sex is good so maybe we need to be thinking beyond just consent when it comes to sexual encounters (ch 1)
2. “…if you think you’re lucky that he was nice to you during the encounter, and you never expected to have an orgasm, or you never even really expected to have pleasure, then you’re consenting to a really different act than someone else…“ (ch 4)
3. young people who are lonely often turn to sex when it isn’t actually what they want/need, and that’s a problem (ch 1)
4. the importance placed on having care-free, no-emotions-attached sex is often problematic (ch 2-3)
5. rarely are both parties on an equal playing field regarding power and risk when it comes to heterosexual monogamous sex. women bear the majority of the fear regarding both wanted and unwanted pregnancies, birth control, and sexual violence. also, bad sex for straight women is (usually) far worse than bad sex for straight men (ch 4)
6. harmful sexual practices are often exempt from criticism behind the “iron curtain” of consent, but we should be reimagining desire to not be based on subjugation and dominance (ch 7)
7. basically, modern dating/hookup culture is bad for all, especially women, and needs to change
HOWEVER:
1. it was SO repetitive and could honestly just have been a long-form essay
2. it only focused on heterosexual dating/hookups (and was homophobic in its anti-anal statements)
3. there was strong ~women are more emotional than men~ vibes. which goes against the thesis that hookup culture is bad for everyone? and was just annoying
4. felt oversimplified sometimes. i don’t doubt the author’s experiences, nor those of who she interviewed, but they are just SOME experiences, and the author sometimes wrote as if they were everyone’s. like “we” feel a certain way
5. heavily implied that the solution for all of these problems, including high rates of assault, is for women to have less casual sex. which is so victim-blamey and makes me want to scream (ch 9)
so i really don’t know. two stars i guess lol
December 17, 2023
(I was determined to read/listen to this book after Leah Libresco Sargeant interviewed the author for her Other Feminisms substack. An interesting discussion for anyone interested in listening!)
Consent is not enough. Through numerous interviews Emba shares, we see that consent has become an important floor, but is a horrible ceiling when it comes to sex. We hear from plenty of women in particular who technically consent.... but to sex they hardly want. Something done to appease a partner, conclude a decent date, or because they have no good reason not to. Something that for the very small percentage of these women is even physically pleasurable. That's all.... sad, right?
I found it baffling that pornography only got passing discussion in only a portion of one of the final chapters. We got that far into the book without talking about how much of a role pornography plays in the imbalance of satisfaction & what women feel pressured to do or put up with. The way the majority of men's brains are literally being rewired (and handicapped relationally) because of the ubiquity of porn seems like a naive oversight in in this book, deserving more than a passing section at the end. The women Emba interviews seem just as naive about what's likely forming the minds of the men they're having these casual-sex encounters with.
The more women feel they need to give to men, the cheaper sex —and relationships— become. But the women quoted in this book each seem to see this as isolated, individual situations, rather than a dramatic shift in the sexual & relational "marketplace" because of porn's influence on real life and behavior. I recommend sociologist Mark Regnerus' book "Cheap Sex" which revolves around such data.
Despite Emba's intelligent and thoughtful analysis, this was a depressing book. I had to take breaks from it. It's filled with a lot of individualistic freedom… resulting in a lot of confusion in relationships, lonely encounters, and the pain of life dreams deferred. Oooooof. A lot that can be avoided.
Emba is certainly speaking to the broad secular culture, so this is by no means a book on Christian sexual ethics in particular. Her philosophical & ethical musings, combined with interspersed interviews made for a helpful and mostly well-rounded view of the current sexual climate.
Every story, every example, every data point, every ethical consideration pointed (screamed!!!) towards a traditional sexual ethic of marriage. It was ultimately disappointing that she nuanced it all to death—in hopes that we can simply tame our passions & will the good of the other in the absence of marital guardrails at the bare minimum.
While periodic chastity, or saving sex for "after getting to know someone better than a first date" or "being in love" are better than the social norms presented.... even these are hazy and unhelpful solutions. As another reviewer put it "To be honest, as someone who believes that sex is meant to be pleasurable, healing, bonding, restorative, generative—and practiced within marriage—it was incredibly discouraging to see how low the bar has dropped."
This book may certainly be a "provocation" for an absolutely unhinged, selfish, lonely, and relationally bankrupt sexual culture. But for the many Christians who find freedom and so much joy in the intended confines of sex within marriage, these concepts are nothing new. The covenant of marriage is the setting for the commitment, safety, reciprocal love, and joyful affection that all these interviews seemed to long for. It is a weird way to live in this world, living in this way, but is an act of worship to the One who made our bodies and designed marriage to hold such fire.
***I would much sooner recommend any of these books which expound on topics in this book, in a more thorough and helpful way:
FOR DATA ON PORN & CASUAL SEX'S EFFECT ON THE RELATIONAL MARKETPLACE:
"Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy" — Mark Regnerus, sociology professor at UT Austin
FOR A HISTORY OF HOW THE WOMENS MOVEMENT HAS CHANGED ACROSS TIME:
"The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision" — Erika Bachiochi, legal scholar & fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
FOR A BEAUTIFUL, ORTHODOX REBUTTAL TO PURITY CULTURE'S CLAIMS:
"Talking Back To Purity Culture: Rediscovering Faithful Christian Sexuality" — Rachel Joy Welcher
FOR A DATA-FILLED EXAMINATION OF A HEALTHIER VISION OF MARITAL SEX:
"The Great Sex Rescue: The Lies You've Been Taught and How to Recover What God Intended" — Sheila Wray Gregoire
Consent is not enough. Through numerous interviews Emba shares, we see that consent has become an important floor, but is a horrible ceiling when it comes to sex. We hear from plenty of women in particular who technically consent.... but to sex they hardly want. Something done to appease a partner, conclude a decent date, or because they have no good reason not to. Something that for the very small percentage of these women is even physically pleasurable. That's all.... sad, right?
I found it baffling that pornography only got passing discussion in only a portion of one of the final chapters. We got that far into the book without talking about how much of a role pornography plays in the imbalance of satisfaction & what women feel pressured to do or put up with. The way the majority of men's brains are literally being rewired (and handicapped relationally) because of the ubiquity of porn seems like a naive oversight in in this book, deserving more than a passing section at the end. The women Emba interviews seem just as naive about what's likely forming the minds of the men they're having these casual-sex encounters with.
The more women feel they need to give to men, the cheaper sex —and relationships— become. But the women quoted in this book each seem to see this as isolated, individual situations, rather than a dramatic shift in the sexual & relational "marketplace" because of porn's influence on real life and behavior. I recommend sociologist Mark Regnerus' book "Cheap Sex" which revolves around such data.
Despite Emba's intelligent and thoughtful analysis, this was a depressing book. I had to take breaks from it. It's filled with a lot of individualistic freedom… resulting in a lot of confusion in relationships, lonely encounters, and the pain of life dreams deferred. Oooooof. A lot that can be avoided.
Emba is certainly speaking to the broad secular culture, so this is by no means a book on Christian sexual ethics in particular. Her philosophical & ethical musings, combined with interspersed interviews made for a helpful and mostly well-rounded view of the current sexual climate.
Every story, every example, every data point, every ethical consideration pointed (screamed!!!) towards a traditional sexual ethic of marriage. It was ultimately disappointing that she nuanced it all to death—in hopes that we can simply tame our passions & will the good of the other in the absence of marital guardrails at the bare minimum.
While periodic chastity, or saving sex for "after getting to know someone better than a first date" or "being in love" are better than the social norms presented.... even these are hazy and unhelpful solutions. As another reviewer put it "To be honest, as someone who believes that sex is meant to be pleasurable, healing, bonding, restorative, generative—and practiced within marriage—it was incredibly discouraging to see how low the bar has dropped."
This book may certainly be a "provocation" for an absolutely unhinged, selfish, lonely, and relationally bankrupt sexual culture. But for the many Christians who find freedom and so much joy in the intended confines of sex within marriage, these concepts are nothing new. The covenant of marriage is the setting for the commitment, safety, reciprocal love, and joyful affection that all these interviews seemed to long for. It is a weird way to live in this world, living in this way, but is an act of worship to the One who made our bodies and designed marriage to hold such fire.
***I would much sooner recommend any of these books which expound on topics in this book, in a more thorough and helpful way:
FOR DATA ON PORN & CASUAL SEX'S EFFECT ON THE RELATIONAL MARKETPLACE:
"Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy" — Mark Regnerus, sociology professor at UT Austin
FOR A HISTORY OF HOW THE WOMENS MOVEMENT HAS CHANGED ACROSS TIME:
"The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision" — Erika Bachiochi, legal scholar & fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
FOR A BEAUTIFUL, ORTHODOX REBUTTAL TO PURITY CULTURE'S CLAIMS:
"Talking Back To Purity Culture: Rediscovering Faithful Christian Sexuality" — Rachel Joy Welcher
FOR A DATA-FILLED EXAMINATION OF A HEALTHIER VISION OF MARITAL SEX:
"The Great Sex Rescue: The Lies You've Been Taught and How to Recover What God Intended" — Sheila Wray Gregoire
February 18, 2023
Reading RETHINKING SEX is like having your hand held and being told that yes, actually, you are right and the world is majorly fucked up. Christine Emba argues that the state of current heterosexual hookup culture is warped by capitalism, overloaded with misogyny, and direly lacking empathy. Her condemnation of practices that hurt us - our feelings, our bodies, our capacity to relate to each other - is necessary, thoughtful, and progressive.
Emba isn't trying to cancel sex; she just wants it to be purposeful and healthy when we have it. Consent should be the bare minimum - "the jumping-off point to start negotiations," as Cher from Clueless would say - not the standard for good, healthy sex.
RATING: 5⭐/5
READ IF YOU LIKE: Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy
Emba isn't trying to cancel sex; she just wants it to be purposeful and healthy when we have it. Consent should be the bare minimum - "the jumping-off point to start negotiations," as Cher from Clueless would say - not the standard for good, healthy sex.
RATING: 5⭐/5
READ IF YOU LIKE: Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy
December 18, 2022
I was very willing to rethink sex and hear out the author’s argument for how and why we should rethink sex, but the more I read, the more I realized that I don’t have a dogmatic view about sex. Neither does the author articulate exactly what view we are rethinking. Her argument seems to be about “feminism” or maybe a particular second or third wave feminism’s insistence on consent or something about sexual liberation? I agree with the author that those views need to be rethought but there wasn’t a clear articulation of their views that I think anyone would actually agree was a fair representation and I couldn’t pin down the author’s rethought views either, besides just a cooler younger version of like wait until you’re in a committed relationship with someone you love? Or married? That’s fine. I’m down with that. I’m just not sure we need a book saying that. I think most people are familiar with those views
April 13, 2022
When discussing modern romance and sex, it is hard to object to the status quo without sounding anti-feminist. By "status quo" I mean the state of romance and sex for many young people born after the 1990s, and especially young people who are well-educated, cosmopolitan, non-religious, and possess a baseline level of social, cultural, and financial capital. I am one of these young people. The status quo as I've seen it among my peers is a strong culture of "since I consented to sex, I shouldn't need to worry about whether it was good or bad for me" (with an undertone of: "so then why do I still feel bad?"); a plague of prospective partners with commitment issues who "just want us to be chill" (coupled perhaps hypocritically with the self-imposed obligation not get too invested in someone lest you need to compromise your ambitions or dreams); and a paradoxical double standard for women that even while we are praised for spending our twenties "exploring", as soon as we hit a certain age we are expected to have tied down a husband and be ready to birth our own children, or else we'll have been "irresponsible" and "should have worked harder to find someone".
Excuse me for sounding cynical about modern romance and sex, because I am. And I don't think I am in the minority. Most women I know (as well as myself) have mixed feelings about the status quo: On the one hand, this is indubitably better than the era where we would have been pulled out of school and matchmade to men we barely knew purely so we could birth his children and barely tolerate him until one of us died. But on the other hand, most of us aren't genuinely happy with the modern status quo, either.
We like our freedom to put ourselves and our careers first. We like having the seemingly unlimited options that dating apps serve up. We like that sex no longer obligates commitment. And yet… is casual sex and flings and endless swiping on Tinder what most of us want? A couple of my women friends chose to enter into "friends with benefits" situations and actually did come away fulfilled and satisfied with their experience. And I personally don't object to dating apps — I met my boyfriend on one. But still, something seems off. Most people I know says that the status quo is fine. But their actions tell a different story — the vast majority are either in serious monogamous relationships, or are refraining from sexual contact until they enter a serious monogamous relationship.
By the way, the women I'm talking about are not Christians or conservatives — they are cosmopolitan, liberal, non-religious, and call themselves feminists. Many of us are second-generation immigrants who have had to do the work of disavowing misogyny in our own cultures in addition to Western culture. And yet we don't align with the modern Western status quo. So what are we to do? How do we defend our position without scripture or tradition to draw on? Are we doomed to forever paying lip service to the status quo without actually agreeing with it? Or can we take a stand and argue for a new sexual ethic while still honoring the principles of feminism?
Christine Emba's Rethinking Sex is not the definitive solution to this problem, but it is a much-needed start. Though Emba is Christian, she makes a secular argument in favor of romantic commitment and a more deliberate, less casual approach to sex. I found two key points of hers particularly compelling.
The first is that sex is an act unlike any other. Sex provides intimacy that is difficult if not impossible to obtain from any other activity. It requires a deep degree of vulnerability and trust to be enjoyable (this is especially true for women for biological reasons). As such, sex carries deep meaning in people's lives, and sexual acts should be taken seriously. This point sounds obvious, especially in the post-#MeToo era where society has a decent grasp of the uniquely violating nature of sex crimes. But I think the point that sex is serious bears emphasizing, because much of our discontent has to do with how our culture lionizes the state of being sexually active while looking down on people who "read too much" into individual sex acts. If people as a whole acknowledged that sex is special, then we wouldn't have to shame ourselves for "catching feelings" after having sex. We wouldn't be sidelining people who choose not to have sex outside a committed relationship, or feeling like we're missing out if we do make that choice. Recognizing that sex is unique and should be taken seriously gives more weight to the choices that women (and people in general) make about our bodies.
The second point I liked was Emba's argument that our sexual ethic should be based on "willing the good of the other". In forming sexual relationships, we should not just selfishly pursue our own sexual projects — we should also consider what our sexual partner wants and what would benefit them in the long run, and in the event that we don't align, err on the side of abstention. As a non-Catholic I don't care much for Aquinas, but even as a non-Christian, I can see the value of considering what other people want and thinking about the consequences that would result from sex. Translating it to the therapy-speak of my generation, I would call it "making sure we're in a space to respect other people's needs and boundaries". After all, isn't that the kind of partner we want for ourselves — someone who is in a space to hear what we need and take the consequences seriously?
There are a number of serious weaknesses in the book, though. Where Emba loses me is the arguments about sex acts that she considers degrading, like BDSM and other kinks. In the chapter about kink, she constantly lumps together kinky sex that is negotiated and agreed upon ahead of time by all parties (which is what ethical kink practitioners do) and kinky sex that one person pressures the other into doing or imposes onto the sex act. I'm not sure whether she spoke to any kink practitioners for that section. This is definitely the most moralistic of all the chapters, which is unfortunate considering that the rest of the book manages to avoid sounding moralistic.
I'm also disappointed by the way that Emba only briefly touches on capitalism. In my opinion, the state of romance and dating today is inextricable from the rise of late-stage capitalism. It's not just the instant gratification and paradox of choice that leads us to "relationshop" on dating apps. It's also the long work hours, withering wages, soaring home prices, and unaffordable childcare that make the traditional model of partner, house, and family that much less attainable. Maybe more of us do want serious relationships, but what's the point if you won't be able to afford a house or kids together? It's hard enough to secure your own standing these days, much less support a household. Better to focus on your own career and avoid committing to someone whose debt, job loss, health issues, etc. could set you back.
Lastly, other reviews have pointed out that this work doesn't really engage feminist philosophy. Ultimately it is hard for me to see the book as a solution to my question ("Can you object to the status quo and still be a feminist?"), because it doesn't really make any groundbreaking points about feminism. It's a shame since I think this book is a great starting point, but I'm not sure it does a great job in convincing people that it doesn't want us to turn the clock back on feminism. Rethinking Sex is a necessary conversation starter about modern romance and sex, but I wish we could have gotten a real conversation instead.
Excuse me for sounding cynical about modern romance and sex, because I am. And I don't think I am in the minority. Most women I know (as well as myself) have mixed feelings about the status quo: On the one hand, this is indubitably better than the era where we would have been pulled out of school and matchmade to men we barely knew purely so we could birth his children and barely tolerate him until one of us died. But on the other hand, most of us aren't genuinely happy with the modern status quo, either.
We like our freedom to put ourselves and our careers first. We like having the seemingly unlimited options that dating apps serve up. We like that sex no longer obligates commitment. And yet… is casual sex and flings and endless swiping on Tinder what most of us want? A couple of my women friends chose to enter into "friends with benefits" situations and actually did come away fulfilled and satisfied with their experience. And I personally don't object to dating apps — I met my boyfriend on one. But still, something seems off. Most people I know says that the status quo is fine. But their actions tell a different story — the vast majority are either in serious monogamous relationships, or are refraining from sexual contact until they enter a serious monogamous relationship.
By the way, the women I'm talking about are not Christians or conservatives — they are cosmopolitan, liberal, non-religious, and call themselves feminists. Many of us are second-generation immigrants who have had to do the work of disavowing misogyny in our own cultures in addition to Western culture. And yet we don't align with the modern Western status quo. So what are we to do? How do we defend our position without scripture or tradition to draw on? Are we doomed to forever paying lip service to the status quo without actually agreeing with it? Or can we take a stand and argue for a new sexual ethic while still honoring the principles of feminism?
Christine Emba's Rethinking Sex is not the definitive solution to this problem, but it is a much-needed start. Though Emba is Christian, she makes a secular argument in favor of romantic commitment and a more deliberate, less casual approach to sex. I found two key points of hers particularly compelling.
The first is that sex is an act unlike any other. Sex provides intimacy that is difficult if not impossible to obtain from any other activity. It requires a deep degree of vulnerability and trust to be enjoyable (this is especially true for women for biological reasons). As such, sex carries deep meaning in people's lives, and sexual acts should be taken seriously. This point sounds obvious, especially in the post-#MeToo era where society has a decent grasp of the uniquely violating nature of sex crimes. But I think the point that sex is serious bears emphasizing, because much of our discontent has to do with how our culture lionizes the state of being sexually active while looking down on people who "read too much" into individual sex acts. If people as a whole acknowledged that sex is special, then we wouldn't have to shame ourselves for "catching feelings" after having sex. We wouldn't be sidelining people who choose not to have sex outside a committed relationship, or feeling like we're missing out if we do make that choice. Recognizing that sex is unique and should be taken seriously gives more weight to the choices that women (and people in general) make about our bodies.
The second point I liked was Emba's argument that our sexual ethic should be based on "willing the good of the other". In forming sexual relationships, we should not just selfishly pursue our own sexual projects — we should also consider what our sexual partner wants and what would benefit them in the long run, and in the event that we don't align, err on the side of abstention. As a non-Catholic I don't care much for Aquinas, but even as a non-Christian, I can see the value of considering what other people want and thinking about the consequences that would result from sex. Translating it to the therapy-speak of my generation, I would call it "making sure we're in a space to respect other people's needs and boundaries". After all, isn't that the kind of partner we want for ourselves — someone who is in a space to hear what we need and take the consequences seriously?
There are a number of serious weaknesses in the book, though. Where Emba loses me is the arguments about sex acts that she considers degrading, like BDSM and other kinks. In the chapter about kink, she constantly lumps together kinky sex that is negotiated and agreed upon ahead of time by all parties (which is what ethical kink practitioners do) and kinky sex that one person pressures the other into doing or imposes onto the sex act. I'm not sure whether she spoke to any kink practitioners for that section. This is definitely the most moralistic of all the chapters, which is unfortunate considering that the rest of the book manages to avoid sounding moralistic.
I'm also disappointed by the way that Emba only briefly touches on capitalism. In my opinion, the state of romance and dating today is inextricable from the rise of late-stage capitalism. It's not just the instant gratification and paradox of choice that leads us to "relationshop" on dating apps. It's also the long work hours, withering wages, soaring home prices, and unaffordable childcare that make the traditional model of partner, house, and family that much less attainable. Maybe more of us do want serious relationships, but what's the point if you won't be able to afford a house or kids together? It's hard enough to secure your own standing these days, much less support a household. Better to focus on your own career and avoid committing to someone whose debt, job loss, health issues, etc. could set you back.
Lastly, other reviews have pointed out that this work doesn't really engage feminist philosophy. Ultimately it is hard for me to see the book as a solution to my question ("Can you object to the status quo and still be a feminist?"), because it doesn't really make any groundbreaking points about feminism. It's a shame since I think this book is a great starting point, but I'm not sure it does a great job in convincing people that it doesn't want us to turn the clock back on feminism. Rethinking Sex is a necessary conversation starter about modern romance and sex, but I wish we could have gotten a real conversation instead.
April 7, 2022
I have read and listened to several interviews with Christine Emba lately, and this is definitely one of those times where if you've read a couple good interviews you don't really need to read the book. I found this to be a rather discouraging read, and while I agree with Emba that there are lots of problems with having consent as the guiding and sole ethic of sex, I didn't feel like she developed a particularly compelling alternative. As a "provocation" I think it does well, but I found the concluding thoughts, or where she herself seems to have settled, to be a little milquetoast while also being so free from rules as to be difficult to implement. Consent is a terrible ceiling, I agree, but I think it makes sense to people because it is (at least in theory) black and white in a way that "just wait until you really care about someone" or even "treat others how you'd like to be treated" isn't. Ultimately, this book does a great job explaining the problems with consent culture but is less effective at offering a robust alternative.
June 27, 2024
could not finish! not quite the feminist slay i thought it’d be or even enlightening at all. too christian based (idk what catholicism she converted to but it wasn’t what i grew up with lol) and down played too much the horrific ways in which women were subjected to marriage through out all of history. there’s also barely an accountability on how men and the patriarchy are responsible for the ways in which women aren’t able to fully be comfortable in expressing their sexuality or communicating when they’re uncomfortable bc there’s the conditioning of pleasing men or the fear of suffering a consequence of stopping a sexual encounter. also lets not forget the complete focus on heteronormative sex and no inclusion of queer people in an entire conversation about sexuality. honestly just felt like i wasted my time and money
November 7, 2023
Exploration of the value of sex in modern culture. Asks important questions, including: Is consent really the one and only thing that matters in sex? Can someone consent to something morally wrong? How are morals involved in sex acts? Should people treat sex as valuable? How do we frame the context for sex as something positive and selfless rather than negative and selfish?
The author has a Christian evangelical background but does not push a single political or religious agenda. She asks good questions but doesn’t offer many answers. Still would recommend.
The author has a Christian evangelical background but does not push a single political or religious agenda. She asks good questions but doesn’t offer many answers. Still would recommend.
June 9, 2022
The sexual ethic addressed in this book is so different from my own that it was hard for me to connect with the content. What is presented as normal in today's culture is downright shocking. The standard is so low beyond love that even care for one's sexual partners is considered rare. The last thirty pages were devoted to "a new ethic" seeking the good of other, and while I thought those pages were very good and pointed in the right direction, I was disappointed that my own sexual ethic that sex is best reserved for marriage was not even considered a legitimate possibility. I wanted to read this book to understand the culture young single adults are swimming in, and it seems things are worse than I thought.
Here's the article that caused me to want to read the book: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...
Here's the article that caused me to want to read the book: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...
Read
May 3, 2022Yikes, 0 stars.
The author was interviewed by a writer I really enjoy and unfortunately that interview (promoting the book) was the highlight—the book itself is a “no” from me.
One example of why I found this book problemsome, occurred early on:
The author referenced different people’s jobs and how they viewed sex a certain way, I.e., Job X is “button up” but person Y is kinky (and the inverse).
How is this relevant? Both facts can be true; dichotomies can exist. Pigeon-holing a profession to a certain sexual proclivity or attitude is narrow-minded, irrelevant, and juvenile at best.
Switching to the writing itself, it read like a 2010 tumblr/juvenile attempt trying to be academic. Save yourself the time and effort and take a hard pass on this one.
The author was interviewed by a writer I really enjoy and unfortunately that interview (promoting the book) was the highlight—the book itself is a “no” from me.
One example of why I found this book problemsome, occurred early on:
The author referenced different people’s jobs and how they viewed sex a certain way, I.e., Job X is “button up” but person Y is kinky (and the inverse).
How is this relevant? Both facts can be true; dichotomies can exist. Pigeon-holing a profession to a certain sexual proclivity or attitude is narrow-minded, irrelevant, and juvenile at best.
Switching to the writing itself, it read like a 2010 tumblr/juvenile attempt trying to be academic. Save yourself the time and effort and take a hard pass on this one.
Read
July 26, 2022I found this almost compulsively readable. Emba's a good writer and an interesting thinker. I come at this topic from a different angle than she does, and I'm obviously not her target audience, but for those steeped in the broader culture's values on sex, this book likely offers a necessary corrective.
The subtitle "A Provocation" led me to expect much stronger claims from her than she actually delivered, though. To me, most of her claims feel mild and requiring baseline human decency, such the fact that there are things to consider beyond consent and that lots of casual sex might be harmful, actually, and that if someone is choking you, you should be able to say you don't like it.
How bad are things out there?
The subtitle "A Provocation" led me to expect much stronger claims from her than she actually delivered, though. To me, most of her claims feel mild and requiring baseline human decency, such the fact that there are things to consider beyond consent and that lots of casual sex might be harmful, actually, and that if someone is choking you, you should be able to say you don't like it.
How bad are things out there?
Read
May 16, 2022I have a few quibbles (and a general vague feeling of discomfort with some of the things Emba alludes to but doesn't explore) but overall this seemed reasonable to me? Is it really THAT provocative? (Genuine question—this ace girl really doesn’t know.)
August 6, 2025
This fell short. Wasn’t bad but also wasn’t life-changing.
February 10, 2023
A really thoughtful critique of the current cultural view of sex. A stab at establishing the case for a need of a sexual ethic beyond just consent, and a proposal for what that ethic could be. The author is not over moralizing but takes more of an approach from: are we truly happy with the effect of the sexual revolution? No? What’s not working? What could be different? How could this be better?
I think this would be an interesting non-religious approach to sex education or maybe the next step after sex-education who are going to enter into the college/career world and help them think through the scene as it exists now, and think about how to care for themselves, and how to care for others.
While I wouldn’t consider this a religious argument, it doesn’t necessarily have to be incompatible with a religious approach.
I think this would be an interesting non-religious approach to sex education or maybe the next step after sex-education who are going to enter into the college/career world and help them think through the scene as it exists now, and think about how to care for themselves, and how to care for others.
While I wouldn’t consider this a religious argument, it doesn’t necessarily have to be incompatible with a religious approach.
September 13, 2023
Given my point-of-view, this should be a work I relish. I mean, wow! An NPR-tier feminist quoting Roger Scruton and bemoaning the alienation specific to being a modern woman while trying to practice liberal sexual mores. Emba is even brave enough to confidently venture that men and women are indeed different, though she, of course, fails to specify how and why this matter (poor Robert Trivers never gets his due!). However, I find Emba's fence-sitting and vagueness untenable given her thesis. Plus, there's no reason Rethinking Sex had to be book length. Her recent "Men are Lost" op-ed in WashPo is essentially a tenth of the length but functions as a companion read or sequel to this book. If you're on the left and increasingly dissatisfied with sexual politics and dynamics, this may be a read for you. You will be made aware of just how gargantuan the task you face is.
I flipped through this one because it is always amusing to follow how real circumstances have forced the zombie of feminism rightward, bifurcating one side toward traditionalism (the gender critical types) and the other toward individualism (liberal feminism). Meanwhile, conflict brews between the two camps.
Extended review of Rethinking Sex
I flipped through this one because it is always amusing to follow how real circumstances have forced the zombie of feminism rightward, bifurcating one side toward traditionalism (the gender critical types) and the other toward individualism (liberal feminism). Meanwhile, conflict brews between the two camps.
Extended review of Rethinking Sex
August 15, 2022
DFR (stopped at page 103/204)
I had to stop when I came to the Emba’s citations of Victorian Christians being “radically gender egalitarian”…
I suppose for Emba that seems a relevant and even useful claim to impose, but as a trans femme person, this “provocation” read more as a close-minded disapproval of radical ideology that disembarks from a Christian and comphet way of living.
At its most extreme, Emba’s writing is blatantly transphobic, which is was felt most at Chapter 4: Men and Women are not the Same. Get ready for non-binary erasure! as Emba actually uses the population size of non-binary peoples to substantiate her super armchair claims on gender.
It seems Emba is content with society allowing women, men, and all the people she’s disregarded (read trans and NB) to construct the harmful gender norms that must be prerequisite for her claims to be true. It seems she’s content with the idea: no let’s not examine the harm that comes when capitalism meets gender, let me talk about sex without CRITICALLY examining the material conditions modern sex arises in. (Yes, I am talking dialectically because Emba actually includes critics of dialectics in her argument).
Sure, Emba makes worthy points that, to anyone who is truly familiar with the works of Lorde, Hooks, and radical authors on love and sex know as pretty basic concepts. Plus, these authors actually include trans and queer folks in their discourse because they are informed by these communities (bc emba, these are the communities that pioneer these concepts). Yes, consent is the bare minimum in constructing an environment where sex can thrive, but I’d like to see this as bullet point on an author’s work that then proceeds to make some truly radical claims, not one that basically says jack and jill are just too different and that’s that!
I had to stop when I came to the Emba’s citations of Victorian Christians being “radically gender egalitarian”…
I suppose for Emba that seems a relevant and even useful claim to impose, but as a trans femme person, this “provocation” read more as a close-minded disapproval of radical ideology that disembarks from a Christian and comphet way of living.
At its most extreme, Emba’s writing is blatantly transphobic, which is was felt most at Chapter 4: Men and Women are not the Same. Get ready for non-binary erasure! as Emba actually uses the population size of non-binary peoples to substantiate her super armchair claims on gender.
It seems Emba is content with society allowing women, men, and all the people she’s disregarded (read trans and NB) to construct the harmful gender norms that must be prerequisite for her claims to be true. It seems she’s content with the idea: no let’s not examine the harm that comes when capitalism meets gender, let me talk about sex without CRITICALLY examining the material conditions modern sex arises in. (Yes, I am talking dialectically because Emba actually includes critics of dialectics in her argument).
Sure, Emba makes worthy points that, to anyone who is truly familiar with the works of Lorde, Hooks, and radical authors on love and sex know as pretty basic concepts. Plus, these authors actually include trans and queer folks in their discourse because they are informed by these communities (bc emba, these are the communities that pioneer these concepts). Yes, consent is the bare minimum in constructing an environment where sex can thrive, but I’d like to see this as bullet point on an author’s work that then proceeds to make some truly radical claims, not one that basically says jack and jill are just too different and that’s that!
April 4, 2022
Ms. Emba, a Washington Post columnist, had been getting a lot of publicity regarding her book. I read a column she wrote and a New York Times piece on it. In addition, I saw a write up in the Substack, Other Feminisms.
I urged my library to buy a digital copy. It came in quickly and I checked it out as soon as I got it, reading it over the course of two days.
What I love about the book is that she's giving us a snapshot of a reality that many women and men have been experiencing in the wake of the current sex positive, porn-saturated, dating app era.
When they were mere kids, more and more young women and men learned about sex from porn.
What has that meant in reality?
Dating went out the window as sex as became paramount, with first date sex the expectation as per Tinder. Women are expected to fulfill men's porn fantasies, but longing for an emotional connection is seen as pathetic. With more sexual freedom, women aren't feeling all that great. If anything, they feel less free.
The book is an assessment of sex from the perspective of developing a saner understanding of it and in the hopes of developing a better dating culture.
The book was especially appealing to me as a romance writer, where writers focus on emotional intimacy, whether or not it's as a part of sexual intimacy, depending on the sub-genre: sweet and mild, as an example.
I wonder, what if more people read romance novels instead of watching porn?
I urged my library to buy a digital copy. It came in quickly and I checked it out as soon as I got it, reading it over the course of two days.
What I love about the book is that she's giving us a snapshot of a reality that many women and men have been experiencing in the wake of the current sex positive, porn-saturated, dating app era.
When they were mere kids, more and more young women and men learned about sex from porn.
What has that meant in reality?
Dating went out the window as sex as became paramount, with first date sex the expectation as per Tinder. Women are expected to fulfill men's porn fantasies, but longing for an emotional connection is seen as pathetic. With more sexual freedom, women aren't feeling all that great. If anything, they feel less free.
The book is an assessment of sex from the perspective of developing a saner understanding of it and in the hopes of developing a better dating culture.
The book was especially appealing to me as a romance writer, where writers focus on emotional intimacy, whether or not it's as a part of sexual intimacy, depending on the sub-genre: sweet and mild, as an example.
I wonder, what if more people read romance novels instead of watching porn?
May 27, 2022
Emba does a great job proposing and defending that the next step for sexual liberation is to have less sex overall. She posits that today's hookup culture deemphasizes the meaning of sex which leads (cishet) women to have more sex with less/no meaning, more bad experiences, and become less satisfied as a result.
Her argument that consent alone isn't enough and that it should be the base limit instead of a checkbox is persuasive. Too many women have experienced bad consensual encounters, in part because they are performing acts that they don't actually want to do. This grey area to encounters that were consented to but disliked/unwanted are common; and, as Emba argues (through Aquinas), emphasizing a good experience for both partners better accounts for a positive outcome compared to this fixation on consent that wrongly equates consent to a good and positive experience.
This book could benefit from a section on how compulsive heterosexuality plays into consensual but bad sexual experiences for women, specifically in how women are statistically less satisfied in their hookups than their male counterparts and why that might be.
Overall a strong book, and I'll be looking out for any more she might write in the future.
Her argument that consent alone isn't enough and that it should be the base limit instead of a checkbox is persuasive. Too many women have experienced bad consensual encounters, in part because they are performing acts that they don't actually want to do. This grey area to encounters that were consented to but disliked/unwanted are common; and, as Emba argues (through Aquinas), emphasizing a good experience for both partners better accounts for a positive outcome compared to this fixation on consent that wrongly equates consent to a good and positive experience.
This book could benefit from a section on how compulsive heterosexuality plays into consensual but bad sexual experiences for women, specifically in how women are statistically less satisfied in their hookups than their male counterparts and why that might be.
Overall a strong book, and I'll be looking out for any more she might write in the future.
March 30, 2022
3 1/2 stars (could have been a long New Yorker article)
As a happily married, middle-aged, Evangelical leaning Episcopalian man, I am not the audience of this book. I think this would be good for a high schooler entering college or a 20 something. She says that not all consensual sex is good.
She does a good job of arguing that. But she does not give a good rule book. And the problem with young folk is that they can rarely figure this out while they are young.
Don't have sex unless you are in a committed long term monogamous relationship. Now that's a rule. And you can define "have sex" and "commited" and "long term" in different ways.
Too many stories and not enough philosophy.
"Practices that are consensual can still be damaging. The absence of consent is not the only I indicator of problematic sex. Consent alone ignores that we can say yes to something that is harmful to us or others."
As a happily married, middle-aged, Evangelical leaning Episcopalian man, I am not the audience of this book. I think this would be good for a high schooler entering college or a 20 something. She says that not all consensual sex is good.
She does a good job of arguing that. But she does not give a good rule book. And the problem with young folk is that they can rarely figure this out while they are young.
Don't have sex unless you are in a committed long term monogamous relationship. Now that's a rule. And you can define "have sex" and "commited" and "long term" in different ways.
Too many stories and not enough philosophy.
"Practices that are consensual can still be damaging. The absence of consent is not the only I indicator of problematic sex. Consent alone ignores that we can say yes to something that is harmful to us or others."
February 23, 2025
This was not for me. The author of this book and I have different ideas about what freedom and women’s liberation mean. Thought this was going to be a feminist writing on sex and gender that would make me think about things in a new way but instead I am simply upset and quite sad.
Emba critiques our current sexual culture and harkens back to an imagined past of idk what kind of idealized heteronormative insanity that has truly never existed. She missed a chance to interrogate our current culture through the lens of imagining new futures and instead made me feel slut shamed as someone in a long term monogamous relationship.
She only focuses her argument on straight sex but then never mentions men or holds them accountable at all? It takes two to tango and her argument forgets that in order to have more equitable romantic encounters both parties must be held responsible! Patriarchy hurts everyone AND everyone is also responsible for dismantling that system especially if you have more power in that system so where are the men in this argument? The fact that she doesn’t mention them makes it feel like the owness to rectify the power imbalances in sexual relationships all falls upon the women reading this book (it feels like she never considers that a man may also be in her audience) and they should feel bad about it!!!
Also, the ‘evidence’ she uses to support her claims are conversations she’s had with random people and cherry picked quotes from famous second wave feminists who would not have finished this book.
This book does not answer the question “what would more equitable, enjoyable, more liberated sex look like?” But instead answers the question “are you a straight, cis women seeking a monogamous relationship? do you hate yourself and feel filled with guilt for your sexual desires? That’s about right keep it up”
Emba critiques our current sexual culture and harkens back to an imagined past of idk what kind of idealized heteronormative insanity that has truly never existed. She missed a chance to interrogate our current culture through the lens of imagining new futures and instead made me feel slut shamed as someone in a long term monogamous relationship.
She only focuses her argument on straight sex but then never mentions men or holds them accountable at all? It takes two to tango and her argument forgets that in order to have more equitable romantic encounters both parties must be held responsible! Patriarchy hurts everyone AND everyone is also responsible for dismantling that system especially if you have more power in that system so where are the men in this argument? The fact that she doesn’t mention them makes it feel like the owness to rectify the power imbalances in sexual relationships all falls upon the women reading this book (it feels like she never considers that a man may also be in her audience) and they should feel bad about it!!!
Also, the ‘evidence’ she uses to support her claims are conversations she’s had with random people and cherry picked quotes from famous second wave feminists who would not have finished this book.
This book does not answer the question “what would more equitable, enjoyable, more liberated sex look like?” But instead answers the question “are you a straight, cis women seeking a monogamous relationship? do you hate yourself and feel filled with guilt for your sexual desires? That’s about right keep it up”
March 11, 2022
This was such a quick read, full of insight, interesting interviews and anecdotes, as well as statistics and historical commentary. I’d highly recommend this book for anyone interested in today’s sexual conversations, but especially for women who may have felt as though society’s constant messaging that ‘all sex with consent is good sex’ may have left them feeling a little unsure about how to feel when the consensual sex was just….really bad sex. The pressure women feel to be sexually available, as well as ‘willing to try anything’ often leads women to feel as though they have to agree to things in order to maintain those actions were the result of hard-won sexual freedom. Ultimately, though I am happily married, this book was incredibly interesting and well-written, providing new points of view that I had never considered on a topic that is often not discussed.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 27, 2022
A great read for those frustrated with evangelical purity culture or those realizing secular philosophy of sex is unfulfilling and emotionally hollow, this book deals with the other extreme, the idea that consent is the only standard when it comes to sex. Fair warning, this book does use explicit language at times, though it's nit unnecessary graphic.
It introduces a different vision than what most secular philosophy of sex entails, the idea of willing the good of the other in the encounter. This isn't a Christian book, it's a secular book critiquing aspects of secular philosophy.
It introduces a different vision than what most secular philosophy of sex entails, the idea of willing the good of the other in the encounter. This isn't a Christian book, it's a secular book critiquing aspects of secular philosophy.
March 25, 2022
At last, ideas about sex that don't go to one extreme or the other. I wish all kids read this book as a part of sex ed.
Moderation IS a thing, people.
Moderation IS a thing, people.
May 18, 2022
ehhhh fine? very specific, catered to a specific person
June 19, 2024
Re-read to appease the troubled soul. Still has problems this time around but I’m ignoring them <3
Displaying 1 - 30 of 238 reviews