The New Yorker reviews the new edition of The Joy of Sex
Chelsie Gosk says: I thought you might be interested in Ariel Levy’s review of the new edition of The Joy of Sex as well as the piece’s accompanying slide show (illustrations from the 1972 edition, the new edition, and Our Bodies, Ourselves) and podcast."
[Joy of Sex author Alex] Comfort had a tendency to focus single-mindedly on a given notion or project at the expense of any kind of balance: while he was a student at Highgate School, in London, he became convinced that he could concoct a superior version of gunpowder. He blew off much of his left hand. By the time he was finished with his experiments, his thumb was the only remaining digit. Later in his life, when he was practicing medicine, he said that he found this claw he’d created “very useful for performing uterine inversions.” After he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, his enthusiasms led him to accumulate six degrees, including a doctorate in biochemistry.
The review appears in the January 5, 2009 edition of The New Yorker.
the latest
latest episodes
The pages in mine are all stuck together. Time to grab the latest edition.
Skip this one and get "The Guide To Getting It On".
Talk about makin' lemonade! I'll bet it's good for hitch-hiking as well. Or at least in some parts of the world (probably some good there too, that I'm just overlooking).
Well, I wonder if they guy was able to come up with an improvement to gunpowder? Sure hope so after all that trouble.
Anyone else notice the only item under 'Customers who bought Joy of Sex also bought' item is a cookbook? Coincidence or Not? You decide.
The New Yorker doesn't think the new doggy style illustration is subversive enough? Not explosive enough, compared to the old one? It looks hot to me. As long as the people are fit and trim, you know?
I always think of finding my parents copy. Then I remember years later when my mom (not knowing that I already knew about it) told how they got it at some high school class reunion because they were the only two without kids. "Why the hell would I want that thing?", she said.
They also own a water pipe from the 60s, and only learned that it was "a marijuana smoking device" during the Just Say No campaign.
If you knew my parents, you'd know these are much more plausible explanations than the more obvious alternatives.
Like that other sex-manual guru, David Reuben, Alex Comfort was pretty full of shit, but the illustrations were pretty hot, except for that one that had the naked fat hippie with the guitar at the orgy. It was my primary source for seeing what sex looked like before the internet (and before I was old enough to rent porn), but I don't really see the relevance now.
Also, putting Our Bodies, Ourselves in the same category, as the author of the New Yorker article does, is just bizarre.
The NYT seems a little conflicted, or perhaps biased is the word I'm looking for. Contrast the openness of this statement: "But, if procreation is no longer the goal of sex, why is one erotic practice more nutritious than the next? Who gets to decide what is horseradish and what is beef?" with the absoluteness of this one: "Sexual fads may come and go, but jealousy is forever."
Yeah, I got that book when it came out in the 70s. A kid at our high school blew his hand off making gunpowder too, as well as blowing up the chem lab. The 70s were so much fun, before they made things like sex and chem labs all safe and stuff, and started arresting people for owning chemistry sets...
The NYT seems a little conflicted, or perhaps biased is the word I'm looking for.
I think ambivalent is the word you're looking for. Like most good reviews, this one highlights both the positives and negatives of the book.
Also, putting Our Bodies, Ourselves in the same category, as the author of the New Yorker article does, is just bizarre.
I dunno, I think it's justified. They were right next to each other on the shelf in my parents' study. :)