What do you think?
Rate this book
Hatred of Sex
Hatred of Sex links Jacques Rancière’s political philosophy of the constitutive disorder of democracy with Jean Laplanche’s identification of a fundamental perturbation at the heart of human sexuality. Sex is hated as well as desired, Oliver Davis and Tim Dean contend, because sexual intensity impedes coherent selfhood and undermines identity, rendering us all a little more deplorable than we might wish. Davis and Dean explore the consequences of this conflicted dynamic across a range of fields and institutions, including queer studies, attachment theory, the #MeToo movement, and “traumatology,” demonstrating how hatred of sex has been optimized and exploited by neoliberalism.
Advancing strong claims about sex, pleasure, power, intersectionality, therapy, and governance, Davis and Dean shed new light on enduring questions of equality at a historical moment when democracy appears ever more precarious.
Advancing strong claims about sex, pleasure, power, intersectionality, therapy, and governance, Davis and Dean shed new light on enduring questions of equality at a historical moment when democracy appears ever more precarious.
206 pages, Paperback
Published April 1, 2022
8 people are currently reading
547 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 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 4, 2023
Why would anyone hate sex? Yes, sex is pleasurable, but it’s also dangerous. It’s often most pleasurable when it’s the most dangerous. It lures you in with the promise of satisfaction and leaves you with a disease. It’s a tool of abuse and exploitation. It forms, then ruins relationships. Let's face it, sex is messy. It's messy to do, it's messy to clean up, and it's messy to talk about.
It's not just prudes, the repressed, and squares who hate sex. Everyone hates sex says Oliver Davis and Tim Dean in their book, The Hatred of Sex. This hatred permeates our culture, our laws, and begets conflicts within our minds. The book is so provocative that the publisher, The University of Nebraska Press, included it in its Provocations series. It’s so provocative it provoked me to write this in response. Maybe it’ll provoke you, too.
Davis and Dean are talking about the act of sex itself, not gender; sex in the sense of coitus, copulation, fornication, lovemaking, getting it on, making out, making the beast with two backs, popularly known as fucking. They’re not saying anything about gender. It’s confusing when a single word is used for different things. “Precisely because every human has a conflicted regard of their own sexuality means that misreading, misconstruing, and misunderstanding is the norm,” they say, “Debates about sex can have more heat than sex itself.”
They say the hatred of sex is a lot like our hatred of democracy. Yes, we hate democracy, too. We hate the way the unwashed masses, the deplorables, or the out-of-touch elites have a say. Sex does the same thing. It brings in an element of disorder to our lives.
There are a million ways sex can be disorderly, but let’s look at one examined by Davis and Dean. Back in the 1980s, in the middle of the AIDS Crisis, some gay men were still going to clubs to pick up guys to have unprotected sex, even when they knew it was risky. Why do people have dangerous sex? It’s not just gay men in the 80s that do. It’s in all of us to do. The ability that sex has to make us forget our self-interest is why we hate sex.
Why would we have dangerous sex? Because it’s dangerous. You might say we’re masochistic, all of us, gay and straight, alike. We court danger and invite pain. “The point of sex is not just to come, but to come undone,” says Davis and Dean.
Let me explain what they mean by coming undone. You come undone when you’re so aroused that you forget yourself to pursue an inappropriate sexual interest. Your better judgement and sometimes your morals come undone. Then you come undone when orgasm is so close you’re powerless to stop it. Your self-control comes undone. In some cases, sex rearranges everything you thought you knew about yourself and the world. The organization of your psyche comes undone. Limits are breached on a number of different levels, and the fetters of identity come undone.
It all has to do with binding and unbinding. Binding and unbinding are psychoanalytic terms. According to Freud, your libido, which began as a vague life force, has no target until it’s bound to an object. When you were an infant, your whole body was an erogenous zone. You could get as much pleasure out of someone touching your elbow as touching your genitals. It wouldn’t matter who touched you, male, female, your mother, your father, or the dog. This couldn’t go on. Pleasure like that is too dangerous and too distracting to be found all over your body and by everyone. People taught you to hate it. They set limits on it, and you learned them. Your erogenous zone diminished to a couple of places on your body, covered by clothing, and was never spoken of or seen in public again. The acceptable targets of your libido were reduced, as well, in most cases to a single gender, a single person, close to your age, and in a prescribed circumstance. Sometimes your libido is so restricted that you can’t get aroused at all and is routed into other things like nurturing, athletics, creativity, or picking fights. You can think of libido as the static electricity that builds up in a storm cloud. When lightning strikes, it’s found its target, whether it be a tree, a lightning rod, or some fool on a golf course. In the case of libido, this energy builds up until something gets your juices flowing. When your libido finds a target, it binds to it. This attraction is a powerful force.
Binding also happens with energies that are not libidinal. Hunger is a relatively vague desire until it binds to the thought of a hot fudge sundae, then it’s bound to the sundae in a state called a craving. Binding is also involved when we construct a self-concept. I don’t know who I am until I bind myself to the idea of being male, American, a husband, a writer, a tennis player, a dog person, and a shrink. There are a million other things I could bind myself to. I’ve had patients bind to the identity of being crazy, depressed, or an addict. Binding makes the amorphous concrete, but also limits you and inhibits change.
Luckily, we have unbinding, or coming undone, which unleashes possibilities. It can reclaim the potential for pleasure your whole body once had. It can even redefine pleasure itself to include pain. It can give you more choice of acceptable targets for your libido. Unbinding allows you to change your personality and be open to new information. When I read a book that has rocked my world, I mean the book has caused me to question everything I thought I knew on the subject and am ready for a fresh understanding; the book unbound me. I can say that about Davis and Dean’s book. It has unbound me from how I used to think about sex. I will bind again, to a new understanding, but that can’t happen unless I unbind from the old one.
Unbinding and binding go hand in hand. They are growth and consolidation. Don’t try to have one without the other. If you don’t unbind, you get stuck. You continue to do the same thing, expecting different results. Your world gets small and downright boring. When you have unbinding without binding, then you never get grounded. You’re confused, flighty, and are heading towards mania.
Just so, with sex. Once you concentrate your libido in your genitals and then on to a single partner, things can get stale if there’s nothing unbinding you. That’s where fucking your brains out comes in. Intense sex unbinds. It makes you forget yourself. You come undone.
We hate sex because unbinding is dangerous. All our traditions and institutions depend on binding. They wouldn’t exist without it. Marriage, for instance, as an institution, is all about being bound to a single individual for life, traditionally someone of the opposite gender for the purpose of raising children. A great deal about marriage has been unbound in the past sixty years or so, but it’s been hard. Culture wars are fought over it.
Let’s get back to the men having unprotected sex with strangers during an epidemic. Their libidos were strongly bound that that kind of sex. They had liberated their libido, so it was not bound in the traditionally approved ways to a single person of the opposite sex in the context of marriage. They had reclaimed the anus as an erogenous zone, so they were not bound to genital sex. But they freed themselves only to become slaves to barebacking. Their libido was so strongly bound to that one target, that they couldn’t stop.
What’s so great about being fucked in the ass by a stranger without a condom that you can’t stop, even at the risk of your life? Being a straight man, I can’t tell you; but I think I understand. I have an analogy. Being a straight man, I relate it to football.
I used to play football. I was a linebacker. I thought it was fun to collide with big, strong men and knock them down. I was not that different from gay men barebacking during the AIDS epidemic. The fun I had was strange, uninhibited, and risky. You might even say queer. What was the point? The point was that it was reckless and risky. The point was to do something pointless.
Any shrink worth his salt can go on and on about how I bound my drives for sex and aggression to football. It’s an example of displacement, a rerouting of energy to an acceptable target. Since straight men are prohibited from touching other men’s bodies, they need football to give them an excuse. They can’t even have close bonds like friendship without their virility being questioned, so they have teams. Competition is less forbidden, but it’s still awkward, so they have sport. Violence needs an outlet, so instead of becoming an axe murderer, they become a linebacker and lay out running backs. It’s clear that football players have sadistic tendencies, but there’s masochism, too. Every time I put a hurt on a running back, I put an equal hurt on myself. The game is not only a matter of eleven people contending with eleven others over space, it’s twenty-two people confronting their own fears and overcoming pain.
How would football players respond if an epidemic in brain injury emerged? We already know. Many keep on playing. They could play flag football, but it’s not the same thing. It’s not as reckless. Of course, any sport, when played seriously, pushes the limits, but some harder than others. Ask anyone who has just had a good workout whether they feel good or bad. They’ll admit to feeling exhausted and sore, but it feels great. Is it any wonder that, when you tell people to wear a condom or confine sex to long-term committed relationships, some scoff and continue to take risks?
There are lots of ways people flout discretion. Are you more attracted to sex with people other than your spouse? Do you get blitzed on a Saturday night? Do you binge on bad food? Do you drive too fast or too close? Gamble too much? Shoplift? Blow off your medication? Chew out the wrong person? Get in fights? You’ve probably had people tell you not to do those things, they’re dangerous; but that gives you more reason to do them. There’s just something in us that doesn’t like a wall.
Challenging limits is often a good thing. It’s how we took down bison, learned to cook with fire, ran faster, replaced superstition with science and the power of horses with horsepower, went to the moon, threw off oppressive regimes, and invented vaccines. It’s also how we overcome our fears, sadness, and pain. If we were to focus our zeal to only challenging the wrong limits, who is to say what are the wrong ones? Aren’t the most prohibited limits the ones most in need of a challenge?
Still, there are limits you’d never cross. You’ll have sex with people other than your spouse, but you would never have sex with children. You’ll get blitzed on a Saturday night, but you would never use a needle to do your drugs. You’ll gorge on pizza but would never have it with pineapple. You drive aggressively but would never deliberately crash your car. You shoplift but would never rob a bank. You stop taking pills you need but would never take all your pills at once. You would never bet the farm, chew out a cop, or start a fight with a boxer. If you have ever done those things, you’ll find it hard to stop. We especially bind to our transgressions.
This is where our hatred of sex comes in. Society takes over to tell us what limits not to challenge. It has subtle means of doing this, and not so subtle, brutal means. The brutal means are burning at the stake, imprisonment, and ostracization of all those who transgress. The subtle ways, says Davis and Dean, are sexual identity politics, attachment theory, and victimology. They devote the second half of their book to a series of polemics against these three powerful forces in our culture. I cannot here do justice to Davis and Dean’s criticism of attachment theory and victimology. For now, let me tell you what they say about identity politics.
Since Davis and Dean are a gay couple, I expected them to complain about how conservatives write restricted laws out of their hatred of sex. Instead, the authors criticize a cause that should be dear to them. They say the gay rights movement is a manifestation of our hatred of sex. The problem is identities. Identities are as binding as sex is unbinding. Identities bind up sex, and sex unbinds identity.
Consider this, if you’re a gay man who barebacks with strangers because it feels good, you would be more open to finding a steady partner than if you were a gay man who barebacks because he is politically committed to an ethos of sexual freedom. Once it becomes about your identity, it’s no longer about the sex.
I can see their point because I eventually quit football. After a teammate sustained a serious brain injury on the field, football wasn’t so much fun anymore. I had been playing for kicks, the pleasure I got from pushing the limits. There are plenty of other ways to push limits. I would not have been able to quit if my identity had been bound up in being a football player. If all my friends were on the team, if my girlfriend liked me because I was a football hero, if I was seeking a scholarship, if I campaigned to fund uniforms, if it was the only way to make my father proud, then my being a football player would have had little to with actually playing football. If football became my identity, it would no longer be about the sport.
The second thing sexual identity politics does, is it sanitizes the sex that’s involved by creating a norm of appropriate sex. The sick, dangerous aspect of sex is glossed over in order to appeal to the public. Proponents of gay rights are more likely to portray a gay lifestyle as two loving, committed people making their lives together, not as people gleefully transgressing traditional boundaries of horror and disgust. They take the sex out of sexual politics. In the same way, defenders of high school football are apt to portray it as character building, rather than twenty-two teenagers engaging in a sadomasochistic orgy. They take the violence out of football.
Davis and Dean have done an interesting thing in their book. They’ve redefined the purpose of sex. Traditionally, sex has supposed to have been about reproduction. It’s the thing you do so you can have children who share some of your genes with your mate and carry on without you. Sex renews and rejuvenates humanity. It never made much sense to tie sex so exclusively to reproduction, since many people have sex who have no ability to reproduce. There’s another reason for sex, say Davis and Dean. It’s to facilitate the binding and unbinding of emotional energy. Sex reshuffles the deck of your mind and gives you a fresh start. While the traditional view promotes the proliferation of the species, Davis and Dean promote the proliferation of targets for the libido.
It would be good if we could overcome our hatred of sex, as well as other hatreds while we’re at it. It’s about time we realized that not everything must make conform to our notions of sense, purity, and order. We may hate to get dirty, but it’s lots of fun to play in the mud.
Keith R Wilson is a therapist in private practice, who has written widely on mental health and relationships"
It's not just prudes, the repressed, and squares who hate sex. Everyone hates sex says Oliver Davis and Tim Dean in their book, The Hatred of Sex. This hatred permeates our culture, our laws, and begets conflicts within our minds. The book is so provocative that the publisher, The University of Nebraska Press, included it in its Provocations series. It’s so provocative it provoked me to write this in response. Maybe it’ll provoke you, too.
Davis and Dean are talking about the act of sex itself, not gender; sex in the sense of coitus, copulation, fornication, lovemaking, getting it on, making out, making the beast with two backs, popularly known as fucking. They’re not saying anything about gender. It’s confusing when a single word is used for different things. “Precisely because every human has a conflicted regard of their own sexuality means that misreading, misconstruing, and misunderstanding is the norm,” they say, “Debates about sex can have more heat than sex itself.”
They say the hatred of sex is a lot like our hatred of democracy. Yes, we hate democracy, too. We hate the way the unwashed masses, the deplorables, or the out-of-touch elites have a say. Sex does the same thing. It brings in an element of disorder to our lives.
There are a million ways sex can be disorderly, but let’s look at one examined by Davis and Dean. Back in the 1980s, in the middle of the AIDS Crisis, some gay men were still going to clubs to pick up guys to have unprotected sex, even when they knew it was risky. Why do people have dangerous sex? It’s not just gay men in the 80s that do. It’s in all of us to do. The ability that sex has to make us forget our self-interest is why we hate sex.
Why would we have dangerous sex? Because it’s dangerous. You might say we’re masochistic, all of us, gay and straight, alike. We court danger and invite pain. “The point of sex is not just to come, but to come undone,” says Davis and Dean.
Let me explain what they mean by coming undone. You come undone when you’re so aroused that you forget yourself to pursue an inappropriate sexual interest. Your better judgement and sometimes your morals come undone. Then you come undone when orgasm is so close you’re powerless to stop it. Your self-control comes undone. In some cases, sex rearranges everything you thought you knew about yourself and the world. The organization of your psyche comes undone. Limits are breached on a number of different levels, and the fetters of identity come undone.
It all has to do with binding and unbinding. Binding and unbinding are psychoanalytic terms. According to Freud, your libido, which began as a vague life force, has no target until it’s bound to an object. When you were an infant, your whole body was an erogenous zone. You could get as much pleasure out of someone touching your elbow as touching your genitals. It wouldn’t matter who touched you, male, female, your mother, your father, or the dog. This couldn’t go on. Pleasure like that is too dangerous and too distracting to be found all over your body and by everyone. People taught you to hate it. They set limits on it, and you learned them. Your erogenous zone diminished to a couple of places on your body, covered by clothing, and was never spoken of or seen in public again. The acceptable targets of your libido were reduced, as well, in most cases to a single gender, a single person, close to your age, and in a prescribed circumstance. Sometimes your libido is so restricted that you can’t get aroused at all and is routed into other things like nurturing, athletics, creativity, or picking fights. You can think of libido as the static electricity that builds up in a storm cloud. When lightning strikes, it’s found its target, whether it be a tree, a lightning rod, or some fool on a golf course. In the case of libido, this energy builds up until something gets your juices flowing. When your libido finds a target, it binds to it. This attraction is a powerful force.
Binding also happens with energies that are not libidinal. Hunger is a relatively vague desire until it binds to the thought of a hot fudge sundae, then it’s bound to the sundae in a state called a craving. Binding is also involved when we construct a self-concept. I don’t know who I am until I bind myself to the idea of being male, American, a husband, a writer, a tennis player, a dog person, and a shrink. There are a million other things I could bind myself to. I’ve had patients bind to the identity of being crazy, depressed, or an addict. Binding makes the amorphous concrete, but also limits you and inhibits change.
Luckily, we have unbinding, or coming undone, which unleashes possibilities. It can reclaim the potential for pleasure your whole body once had. It can even redefine pleasure itself to include pain. It can give you more choice of acceptable targets for your libido. Unbinding allows you to change your personality and be open to new information. When I read a book that has rocked my world, I mean the book has caused me to question everything I thought I knew on the subject and am ready for a fresh understanding; the book unbound me. I can say that about Davis and Dean’s book. It has unbound me from how I used to think about sex. I will bind again, to a new understanding, but that can’t happen unless I unbind from the old one.
Unbinding and binding go hand in hand. They are growth and consolidation. Don’t try to have one without the other. If you don’t unbind, you get stuck. You continue to do the same thing, expecting different results. Your world gets small and downright boring. When you have unbinding without binding, then you never get grounded. You’re confused, flighty, and are heading towards mania.
Just so, with sex. Once you concentrate your libido in your genitals and then on to a single partner, things can get stale if there’s nothing unbinding you. That’s where fucking your brains out comes in. Intense sex unbinds. It makes you forget yourself. You come undone.
We hate sex because unbinding is dangerous. All our traditions and institutions depend on binding. They wouldn’t exist without it. Marriage, for instance, as an institution, is all about being bound to a single individual for life, traditionally someone of the opposite gender for the purpose of raising children. A great deal about marriage has been unbound in the past sixty years or so, but it’s been hard. Culture wars are fought over it.
Let’s get back to the men having unprotected sex with strangers during an epidemic. Their libidos were strongly bound that that kind of sex. They had liberated their libido, so it was not bound in the traditionally approved ways to a single person of the opposite sex in the context of marriage. They had reclaimed the anus as an erogenous zone, so they were not bound to genital sex. But they freed themselves only to become slaves to barebacking. Their libido was so strongly bound to that one target, that they couldn’t stop.
What’s so great about being fucked in the ass by a stranger without a condom that you can’t stop, even at the risk of your life? Being a straight man, I can’t tell you; but I think I understand. I have an analogy. Being a straight man, I relate it to football.
I used to play football. I was a linebacker. I thought it was fun to collide with big, strong men and knock them down. I was not that different from gay men barebacking during the AIDS epidemic. The fun I had was strange, uninhibited, and risky. You might even say queer. What was the point? The point was that it was reckless and risky. The point was to do something pointless.
Any shrink worth his salt can go on and on about how I bound my drives for sex and aggression to football. It’s an example of displacement, a rerouting of energy to an acceptable target. Since straight men are prohibited from touching other men’s bodies, they need football to give them an excuse. They can’t even have close bonds like friendship without their virility being questioned, so they have teams. Competition is less forbidden, but it’s still awkward, so they have sport. Violence needs an outlet, so instead of becoming an axe murderer, they become a linebacker and lay out running backs. It’s clear that football players have sadistic tendencies, but there’s masochism, too. Every time I put a hurt on a running back, I put an equal hurt on myself. The game is not only a matter of eleven people contending with eleven others over space, it’s twenty-two people confronting their own fears and overcoming pain.
How would football players respond if an epidemic in brain injury emerged? We already know. Many keep on playing. They could play flag football, but it’s not the same thing. It’s not as reckless. Of course, any sport, when played seriously, pushes the limits, but some harder than others. Ask anyone who has just had a good workout whether they feel good or bad. They’ll admit to feeling exhausted and sore, but it feels great. Is it any wonder that, when you tell people to wear a condom or confine sex to long-term committed relationships, some scoff and continue to take risks?
There are lots of ways people flout discretion. Are you more attracted to sex with people other than your spouse? Do you get blitzed on a Saturday night? Do you binge on bad food? Do you drive too fast or too close? Gamble too much? Shoplift? Blow off your medication? Chew out the wrong person? Get in fights? You’ve probably had people tell you not to do those things, they’re dangerous; but that gives you more reason to do them. There’s just something in us that doesn’t like a wall.
Challenging limits is often a good thing. It’s how we took down bison, learned to cook with fire, ran faster, replaced superstition with science and the power of horses with horsepower, went to the moon, threw off oppressive regimes, and invented vaccines. It’s also how we overcome our fears, sadness, and pain. If we were to focus our zeal to only challenging the wrong limits, who is to say what are the wrong ones? Aren’t the most prohibited limits the ones most in need of a challenge?
Still, there are limits you’d never cross. You’ll have sex with people other than your spouse, but you would never have sex with children. You’ll get blitzed on a Saturday night, but you would never use a needle to do your drugs. You’ll gorge on pizza but would never have it with pineapple. You drive aggressively but would never deliberately crash your car. You shoplift but would never rob a bank. You stop taking pills you need but would never take all your pills at once. You would never bet the farm, chew out a cop, or start a fight with a boxer. If you have ever done those things, you’ll find it hard to stop. We especially bind to our transgressions.
This is where our hatred of sex comes in. Society takes over to tell us what limits not to challenge. It has subtle means of doing this, and not so subtle, brutal means. The brutal means are burning at the stake, imprisonment, and ostracization of all those who transgress. The subtle ways, says Davis and Dean, are sexual identity politics, attachment theory, and victimology. They devote the second half of their book to a series of polemics against these three powerful forces in our culture. I cannot here do justice to Davis and Dean’s criticism of attachment theory and victimology. For now, let me tell you what they say about identity politics.
Since Davis and Dean are a gay couple, I expected them to complain about how conservatives write restricted laws out of their hatred of sex. Instead, the authors criticize a cause that should be dear to them. They say the gay rights movement is a manifestation of our hatred of sex. The problem is identities. Identities are as binding as sex is unbinding. Identities bind up sex, and sex unbinds identity.
Consider this, if you’re a gay man who barebacks with strangers because it feels good, you would be more open to finding a steady partner than if you were a gay man who barebacks because he is politically committed to an ethos of sexual freedom. Once it becomes about your identity, it’s no longer about the sex.
I can see their point because I eventually quit football. After a teammate sustained a serious brain injury on the field, football wasn’t so much fun anymore. I had been playing for kicks, the pleasure I got from pushing the limits. There are plenty of other ways to push limits. I would not have been able to quit if my identity had been bound up in being a football player. If all my friends were on the team, if my girlfriend liked me because I was a football hero, if I was seeking a scholarship, if I campaigned to fund uniforms, if it was the only way to make my father proud, then my being a football player would have had little to with actually playing football. If football became my identity, it would no longer be about the sport.
The second thing sexual identity politics does, is it sanitizes the sex that’s involved by creating a norm of appropriate sex. The sick, dangerous aspect of sex is glossed over in order to appeal to the public. Proponents of gay rights are more likely to portray a gay lifestyle as two loving, committed people making their lives together, not as people gleefully transgressing traditional boundaries of horror and disgust. They take the sex out of sexual politics. In the same way, defenders of high school football are apt to portray it as character building, rather than twenty-two teenagers engaging in a sadomasochistic orgy. They take the violence out of football.
Davis and Dean have done an interesting thing in their book. They’ve redefined the purpose of sex. Traditionally, sex has supposed to have been about reproduction. It’s the thing you do so you can have children who share some of your genes with your mate and carry on without you. Sex renews and rejuvenates humanity. It never made much sense to tie sex so exclusively to reproduction, since many people have sex who have no ability to reproduce. There’s another reason for sex, say Davis and Dean. It’s to facilitate the binding and unbinding of emotional energy. Sex reshuffles the deck of your mind and gives you a fresh start. While the traditional view promotes the proliferation of the species, Davis and Dean promote the proliferation of targets for the libido.
It would be good if we could overcome our hatred of sex, as well as other hatreds while we’re at it. It’s about time we realized that not everything must make conform to our notions of sense, purity, and order. We may hate to get dirty, but it’s lots of fun to play in the mud.
Keith R Wilson is a therapist in private practice, who has written widely on mental health and relationships"
April 1, 2025
This one is a doozy, folks. At first, I found the writing style and references overly dense, but as I progressed through the book, I realized their argument needed to be crafted oh so carefully. Dean and Davis connect Ranciere and LaPlanche's theories (two people I did not know enough about to understand this book fully) to argue that "sex is hated as well as desired...because sexual intensity breeds disorder." The authors explore how feminism, queer theory, therapy, attachment theory, and governance interface with this fact, and how this all laid the groundwork for QAnon. Overall, I admire the argument.
January 13, 2026
Provocative this was, indeed. In the sense that Davis and Dean certainly promote with their argument on the hatred of sex an interesting polemical, yes, but also because of their rather poor investigation (and, thus, delivery) skills. What starts off as actually quite an interesting idea, falls quickly down into an abyss filled with the annoyed sentiments of two white cis gay men, whose egos seem to be too fragile to admit that queer theory could possibly be adapting before their very eyes. The thought that this category of queer thinkers can no longer be sustained solely by discussing their experiences in bathhouses or in public parks without addressing issues of gender, race, class, etc. seem to them to be unfair and it's quite obvious that this is the case in this book.
This is especially obvious in some of Davis' and Dean's critiques of the #MeToo movements and of their central idea of disavowing abuse and the following trauma to (probably one of my least favourite terms of I've ever heard) "benign sexual inappropriateness," which they determine can include "sexual awkwardness, unwanted attention, sexual unhappiness, and pleasurable excess." Right....
Their critique of intersectionality, although kind of annoying to me, does hold some ground. I can actually appreciate their concept of "juridical imaginary," as Crenshaw's term certainly does stem from the legal realm. (God forbid, though, that we bring in legal terms into queer theory!) What's interesting here, however, is their disregard of terms like "interlocking" from the Combahee River Collective, which, based in emancipatory goals, can cross over into queer theory a lot easier, perhaps. Though Davis and Dean do not mention this at all.
I could continue with my many critiques, but, overall, there is just an extreme disconnect with contemporary queer theory and its subfields of trans studies, queer of colour critique, disability studies (literally never breached). Davis and Dean have clearly written this book to try and show that, despite their original field(s) of interest crumbling before their eyes, they are holding on to the ledge by their fingernails, hoping that some traction be gained. Perhaps it's better to reach up to the hand that is trying to save them, rather than to fall deeper into the abyss.
This is especially obvious in some of Davis' and Dean's critiques of the #MeToo movements and of their central idea of disavowing abuse and the following trauma to (probably one of my least favourite terms of I've ever heard) "benign sexual inappropriateness," which they determine can include "sexual awkwardness, unwanted attention, sexual unhappiness, and pleasurable excess." Right....
Their critique of intersectionality, although kind of annoying to me, does hold some ground. I can actually appreciate their concept of "juridical imaginary," as Crenshaw's term certainly does stem from the legal realm. (God forbid, though, that we bring in legal terms into queer theory!) What's interesting here, however, is their disregard of terms like "interlocking" from the Combahee River Collective, which, based in emancipatory goals, can cross over into queer theory a lot easier, perhaps. Though Davis and Dean do not mention this at all.
I could continue with my many critiques, but, overall, there is just an extreme disconnect with contemporary queer theory and its subfields of trans studies, queer of colour critique, disability studies (literally never breached). Davis and Dean have clearly written this book to try and show that, despite their original field(s) of interest crumbling before their eyes, they are holding on to the ledge by their fingernails, hoping that some traction be gained. Perhaps it's better to reach up to the hand that is trying to save them, rather than to fall deeper into the abyss.
November 14, 2024
Sex and democracy coincides in their capability to provoke animosity towards the Other in the instances we encounter the diversity of their libidinal investments. Customs, personal freedoms, taste, political opinion, all shatter the subject into partialisms alike.
That's why sex is deeply ontological. Rather than organizing the self into a cohesive structure, sex fragmentizes, creates contradictions, and refuses systematization. Sex, like democracy, is a body of contradiction, still desiring reunion.
Coming out of a dramatic, American election, the democratic subject can surely be said to have been degenitalized, in the sense that there can no longer be any illusions of the results of 2016 being an anomaly. The democratic subject of the new world is that which eroticizes the partial object, dislodged from their unitary whole. Trump as a political figurehead functions in this way, for while the totality of the character itself might be grotesque, the democratic voter has chosen their -- to echo Lacan -- "object-cause" of desire. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, attempted to mythologize itself as the totality which could contain everyone and anyone, and subsequently failed to direct public, authentic anger anywhere at all.
The continuous amassment of the voices of "everyone" usually signals a belief in the project that a totality or a complete set of totalities can be discovered. But didn't the recent election results demonstrate that both polling and campaigning targets something which, as Dean and Davis formulates it, "actively resists being bound and localized". I paraphrase Alenka Zupancic's definition of sublimation when I claim that democracy, the public, community and nationality are sublimated conceptualizations: not by definition sexual, but elevated to the same status as sex.
Thus meditations on democracy is informative for our investigations of sex. Equally, sex interrupts the totality of a self. Sex scrapes against the codified, the everyday "flow of things". The sexual social life is a body of exclusions, not inclusions, in the same way our democratic body is not a series of participating, set identities ad infinitum, but generates new excluded voices by its very method of totalization.
That's why sex is deeply ontological. Rather than organizing the self into a cohesive structure, sex fragmentizes, creates contradictions, and refuses systematization. Sex, like democracy, is a body of contradiction, still desiring reunion.
Coming out of a dramatic, American election, the democratic subject can surely be said to have been degenitalized, in the sense that there can no longer be any illusions of the results of 2016 being an anomaly. The democratic subject of the new world is that which eroticizes the partial object, dislodged from their unitary whole. Trump as a political figurehead functions in this way, for while the totality of the character itself might be grotesque, the democratic voter has chosen their -- to echo Lacan -- "object-cause" of desire. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, attempted to mythologize itself as the totality which could contain everyone and anyone, and subsequently failed to direct public, authentic anger anywhere at all.
The continuous amassment of the voices of "everyone" usually signals a belief in the project that a totality or a complete set of totalities can be discovered. But didn't the recent election results demonstrate that both polling and campaigning targets something which, as Dean and Davis formulates it, "actively resists being bound and localized". I paraphrase Alenka Zupancic's definition of sublimation when I claim that democracy, the public, community and nationality are sublimated conceptualizations: not by definition sexual, but elevated to the same status as sex.
Thus meditations on democracy is informative for our investigations of sex. Equally, sex interrupts the totality of a self. Sex scrapes against the codified, the everyday "flow of things". The sexual social life is a body of exclusions, not inclusions, in the same way our democratic body is not a series of participating, set identities ad infinitum, but generates new excluded voices by its very method of totalization.
Read
May 2, 2024There are parts that I found a little unconvincing, and overall, the book, perhaps due to its shortness and organisation, leaves me wanting more (one might say it leaves me with unsatisfied Lust). But it also offers a wealth of fascinating, much appreciated provocations.
Read
May 31, 2025DNF
was inspired to read after Philosophy of Sex class
interesting thesis but convoluted, messy, and boring way of exploring it. i thought the extent to which they brought the political angle was a stretch.
was inspired to read after Philosophy of Sex class
interesting thesis but convoluted, messy, and boring way of exploring it. i thought the extent to which they brought the political angle was a stretch.
October 31, 2023
read this for vic168 essay. very interesting ideas like Hmmmm
April 12, 2024
Exciting, polemical, provocative, and just all around really interesting.
Everyone is, in some way, reviled by sex. This has nothing to do with social conservatism, homophobia, religion, or anything else. It has everything to do with the fact that sex is caustic to the ego; it involves total surrender and the dissolution of one's self. Hatred is the ego's automatic response to that which threatens it; the inherent psychic danger sex poses makes it irredeemably grotesque and worthy of contempt. In fact, it makes all sex a bit masochistic. We may try to hide the deplorable nature of sex by turning it into a notches-on-the-bedpost style game/competition, but this is just a facile retroactive attempt to show that our egos have tamed the untamable.
What best defines the sexual might be its "propensity for muddying lines, trespassing boundaries, and ruining formal integrity". This quality means that in any experience where one's subjective experience is totally overwhelmed, there is the potential for a distinctly sexual pleasure. In other words, what we call the sexual might be best defined by its self-shattering intensity. "The point is not to come, but to come undone."
The unbinding, centrifugal nature of sex is totally antithetical to identity. In both popular and academic discourse, identity is often deployed as a prophylactic -- an attempt to render the excess and messiness of sex harmless and clean. Identity can be seen as "the ego's colonizing designs on experience"; this makes it a fundamentally narcissistic and conservative project by virtue of the psychic processes which create it.
Rather than seeking to hide from it or sanitize it, we should seek to embrace the totally deplorable, non-redemptive, self-shattering power of sex. It might even be rethought and used for explicitly feminist aims. "In sexual pleasure there lies a [self]-violation that militates against sexual violence".
Because of its indescribably in terms of identity, we should be very cautious of analyzing sex through the otherwise-useful lens of intersectionality. In its dogmatic focus on intersectionality, the authors claim, queer theory has stepped away from sex entirely, choosing instead to hide the actual act behind the more familiar and comfortable categories of race, gender, nationality, etc. In order for sex to enter the academy via queer theory, it had to be sanitized of its inherent messiness through its attachment to identity.
The pop-culture traumatophilia that has grown out of the homophobic, militarized, security-obsessed dreams of attachment theory is toxic democracy promotes the hatred of sex in all its messy unmanageability. Attachment theory was based on the premise that what occurs to a person in their very early life -- specifically the kind of relationship they have with their primary caregiver -- is thought to have incredibly wide-reaching consequences for that person's entire psychic life moving forward.
Attachment theory and the more radical strain of traumatology that grew out of it encourage the proliferation of bureaucracies of risk and assures us that if we can just be properly administered -- just assume the identity of Victims ready to give ourselves over to the expertise of traumatological experts -- we can solve the deep psychic rifts within us. This is directly opposed to the psychoanalytic view, which sees human psychic life as full of inescapable inner contradictions which must be discovered and come to terms with, not bureaucratically expunged.
paraphrased: "By proposing that the suffering of intrapsychic conflict was a pathology caused by deficiencies in the caregiving environment of early childhood, attachment theory amounted to a bureaucratic cancellation of psychoanalysis. The psyche was to be intelligible purely as the predictable product of administrable external reality. This was a utopian fantasy of bureauracratic power: if the world could only be properly administered, then there would be no suffering".
Everyone is, in some way, reviled by sex. This has nothing to do with social conservatism, homophobia, religion, or anything else. It has everything to do with the fact that sex is caustic to the ego; it involves total surrender and the dissolution of one's self. Hatred is the ego's automatic response to that which threatens it; the inherent psychic danger sex poses makes it irredeemably grotesque and worthy of contempt. In fact, it makes all sex a bit masochistic. We may try to hide the deplorable nature of sex by turning it into a notches-on-the-bedpost style game/competition, but this is just a facile retroactive attempt to show that our egos have tamed the untamable.
What best defines the sexual might be its "propensity for muddying lines, trespassing boundaries, and ruining formal integrity". This quality means that in any experience where one's subjective experience is totally overwhelmed, there is the potential for a distinctly sexual pleasure. In other words, what we call the sexual might be best defined by its self-shattering intensity. "The point is not to come, but to come undone."
The unbinding, centrifugal nature of sex is totally antithetical to identity. In both popular and academic discourse, identity is often deployed as a prophylactic -- an attempt to render the excess and messiness of sex harmless and clean. Identity can be seen as "the ego's colonizing designs on experience"; this makes it a fundamentally narcissistic and conservative project by virtue of the psychic processes which create it.
Rather than seeking to hide from it or sanitize it, we should seek to embrace the totally deplorable, non-redemptive, self-shattering power of sex. It might even be rethought and used for explicitly feminist aims. "In sexual pleasure there lies a [self]-violation that militates against sexual violence".
Because of its indescribably in terms of identity, we should be very cautious of analyzing sex through the otherwise-useful lens of intersectionality. In its dogmatic focus on intersectionality, the authors claim, queer theory has stepped away from sex entirely, choosing instead to hide the actual act behind the more familiar and comfortable categories of race, gender, nationality, etc. In order for sex to enter the academy via queer theory, it had to be sanitized of its inherent messiness through its attachment to identity.
The pop-culture traumatophilia that has grown out of the homophobic, militarized, security-obsessed dreams of attachment theory is toxic democracy promotes the hatred of sex in all its messy unmanageability. Attachment theory was based on the premise that what occurs to a person in their very early life -- specifically the kind of relationship they have with their primary caregiver -- is thought to have incredibly wide-reaching consequences for that person's entire psychic life moving forward.
Attachment theory and the more radical strain of traumatology that grew out of it encourage the proliferation of bureaucracies of risk and assures us that if we can just be properly administered -- just assume the identity of Victims ready to give ourselves over to the expertise of traumatological experts -- we can solve the deep psychic rifts within us. This is directly opposed to the psychoanalytic view, which sees human psychic life as full of inescapable inner contradictions which must be discovered and come to terms with, not bureaucratically expunged.
paraphrased: "By proposing that the suffering of intrapsychic conflict was a pathology caused by deficiencies in the caregiving environment of early childhood, attachment theory amounted to a bureaucratic cancellation of psychoanalysis. The psyche was to be intelligible purely as the predictable product of administrable external reality. This was a utopian fantasy of bureauracratic power: if the world could only be properly administered, then there would be no suffering".
August 21, 2024
Awesome. On the dangers of our culture's hatred of sex as something which is a priori dangerous, low, shameful or dirty, and all the social consequences this perspective creates.
January 5, 2026
Traumatology and queer theory were not ready for Dean and Davis to clock them and read them for filth.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews