why every journalist will want to read my sex book

Journalists. I love them and I love their important job, and god knows I could never do it. But one way I’d measure the success of my (putative) book is if intelligent journalists read it and then stopped making unnecessary mistakes.

For example, everyone at the NYT needs to learn about responsive desire (it’s in my Chapter 5). They needed to know about it here and here and most recently here. These are all on the subject of medical interventions for “female sexual dysfunction” – and these are all articles published within the last year.

And everyone at The Atlantic needs to learn about the “purity” moral foundation (it’s in my Chapter 4). They needed it here (how Thomas Hardy’s predates the current arguments against the purity culture) and here (the ethics of extreme porn) and here (the complicated relationship some fundamentalists have with premarital sex) and here (culture and masturbation) and also here (what Immanual Kant, apparently, has to say about sexual morality -I’m afraid my undergrad philosophy minor didn’t cover that).

The purity moral foundation would also haven been handy here, though it was an opinion thing and the NYT didn’t really have control over that (NYT Room for Debate about sex education). It also would be useful any time either publication (or any publication, really) discusses why people “disagree” with same-sex marriage. (People disagree because it makes them go, “Ew,” and then they dress that moral intuition up in a moral narrative.)

And while I’m on a “holy crap, NYT,” binge, an intersex baby isn’t born with “both male and female genitalia”, they’re born with ambiguous genitalia – unless it’s not a case of intersex, but rather an extraordinarily rare and specific case of conjoined twins. That’s covered right in Chapter 1, my friends.

Also, all of these journalists would have better sex lives, too, which is totally a win.