What a feminist can do for men's sexual pleasure.

Sex is Not a Natural Act (2nd Edition). By Leonore Tiefer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004, 304 pages. Paper, $30.00.

The first thing to know before reading this review is that Tiefer is a feminist and I am a man. This is important because Tiefer refers to the individual background of scientists and the inherent lack of objectivity as principal basics for every scientific approach (p. 3).

Second, I think it is important to know why I concern myself with this book. As a scientist I refuse to limit myself to the barriers of a single disciplinary view; I favor an interdisciplinary attempt. In this way the book allows me to learn about an approach different to the traditional one, relating to the same facts but putting forward other interpretations as the basic theory is different. In this sense I suggest not seeing feminism as an angry attack against which to try to counterattack. I propose to consider feminist theory as one criticism of science beside other criticisms. It would be a shame to ignore an entire view just because women first started to fix its lenses.

Besides, the basics of Tiefer's view derive not only from feminism, but also from individualism and humanism. From Feminism, Tiefer refers to a tradition of more than 30 years of feminist research in different fields and with different perspectives. From individualism, Tiefer argues against the leveling of men and women on the one hand and of all women on the other. From Humanism, she stresses (and at the same time brands) the impact of industry and commerce on humans. Here Tiefer explicitly quotes as a similar criticism the book Food Politics (Nestle, 2002), which deals with the industrial influences on our dietary choice, to our detriment.

Third, it should also be said that The Journal of Sex Research review of the first edition of this book (Tiefer, 1995) was written by a woman (McCormick, 1995). Not just a woman, but a feminist colleague of Tiefer's. Does this show a lack of interest in traditional (meaning male-shaped) sexuality research? Possibly, as nine years later, Tiefer is still complaining about the ignorance of traditional sexology towards feminist research. This raises some questions: Are men not interested in feminist approaches to science? Why? What do they fear?

The first conclusion I have to draw at this point of the review is that the book is worth reading, for women and for men! The book is a collection of essays on feminist sexuality research; all pieces have already been published elsewhere between 1980 and 2004. Here they have been collected and brought into an argumentative logical order. The choice of essays reflects Tiefer's personality and career as there are speeches and group writings included along with the scientific papers. It is important to know that Tiefer is not a feminist simply because she is a woman. She explains that she had been "addicted" to traditional sex research for years before feminist scholarship showed her "the incompleteness of the traditional sexology perspective" (p. 114).

The title of the book expresses Tiefer's basic social constructivist assumption: "Sex is not a natural act". But what is sex then? Her simple answer: Sex is social. The more complicated answer: "A concept" (p. 3). An even more complicated answer: "I think of sex as a psychophysiological potential that can be developed a lot, a little, or not at all, depending on circumstances, talent, opportunities, interests" (p. 181). As a very simple example to stress this hypothesis, Tiefer refers to "the kiss" (p. 79), which has different meanings in different cultures and can be seducing and erotic as well as disgusting.

The point that sex is social is combined in the book with an allusion to the ideology behind sexual science, which recently is dominated by the pharmaceutical industry. For example, Tiefer describes the emergence of Viagra and the recent search for "Pink Viagra" (p. 269) for women. Her question is whether there was a problem for which a remedy was created or whether there was a product in search of a disorder to treat (p. 269). This issue points to the coital imperative and the modern reduction of sexuality to genital intercourse with its functional order being measured in erections and ejaculations. In this clinical context, to heal implies the mentioned restriction of sexual research to a medical approach which is due to conservative politic forces and public estimation of sex: A respectable analysis has to be sober and clinical, therefore set up on a medical approach. This is part of Tiefer's criticism of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and their basic publication Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) in which sexuality is treated as bodily functioning or a genital act, implying that treatment consists of administering drugs. As a result, recent sex research is concentrated on symptoms, not on causes.

In its understanding the book is not only a scholarly piece but definitively political. This is a criticism often applied to Tiefer's work. However, such criticism neglects the fact that she declares herself political, and as being on a mission for the liberation of women: "Feminism is about destroying ideologies and practices of female subordination" (p. 172). Accordingly, Tiefer admits having written at least some of the essays "in the heat of the moment" (p. 115). But what is bad about being political? Why refuse a book which is partly political? Some of the essays are scientific, others purely popular. But why does a book have to be written in a scientific style to prompt people to think about the implied ideas? Is only a scientifically expressed idea worth thinking about? For readers answering with a definite "yes," there is a solution: just read the scientific entries in the book. The distinction is easy to make by simply noting where each essay was originally published.

Referring back to McCormick's (1995) review of Tiefer's first edition, the criticisms pointed out then are still valid: Tiefer's work is repetitious and tends to neglect issues of race and ethnicity. Additional criticisms I would add include that Tiefer is too extreme in refusing the biological aspects of sexuality and in splitting sexuality entirely from biology: "Human sexuality is not a biological given and cannot be explained in terms of reproductive biology or instinct" (p. 3).

On the one hand Tiefer wants to educate people to understand the social construction of sexuality so that they can determine their own sexuality without the barriers of medical dominance. On the other hand she talks about the "power of naming" (p. 187) and refers to her clients as "patients" (p. 149). Do these choices reveal that Tiefer is a feminist doctor but still a doctor and the patient still a patient who is just charged with another idea but remains more object than subject? Also, Tiefer rejects the medical model of sexual dysfunction and treatment, ignoring the positive results that have occurred. Is there room for a combined approach to diagnosis and treatment?

Are these criticisms important? "Yes" in the sense that Tiefer gives us an incomplete view of sexuality, but "No" if one considers the book a basic one. No book on sexuality can be complete, and this one is not meant to serve as the manual for feminist thinking in sexuality research. And the logical argumentation is seducing, if not convincing. This leads to the question of who should read the book. Perhaps for feminists Tiefer's repetitiousness makes the lecture a little bit long. For non-feminists this can be seen as an advantage as it helps to get inside a feminist's thinking. The humorous style and the short chapters make it very comfortable to read the book.

Which edition should you read? Both books share several essays, but there are important differences. For example, the first edition focused on the medicalization of male sexuality (e.g., "In Pursuit of the Perfect Penis"), whereas this edition is more about the medicalization of women's sexuality (e.g., "The Creation of FSD"). In my opinion it's worth reading Tiefer in general and up to you to decide what might match your interests more. I propose starting with the second edition and then adding the chapter in the first edition about the "Perfect Penis." Either way, you can start reading Tiefer by visiting www.fsd-alert.org.

Last, it is worth noting that there are messages in the book for nonprofessionals. One such theme is that sex is not about effort and time management, and not to be divided into generally graded steps with orgasm as the ultimate goal. Orgasm is a positive part, but sex is about an integral experience of individual or inter-individual pleasure. A man's penis is only one part of his body and therefore only one part in sexuality. This can help the individual male reader feel less anxious about its possible dysfunction (the anxiety itself often causing the dysfunction) and facilitate discovery of new sensitive fields of one's sexuality. As Tiefer wrote: "Genitals are those organs involved in acts of generation" (p. 55), whereas sex is what you make of it. Doesn't this make it worth reading the book?

REFERENCES

McCormick, Naomi B. (1995). Taking on sexuality. Review of: Sex is not a natural Act. The Journal of Sex Research, 32, 167-169.

Nestle, M. (200:2). Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Tiefer, Leoneore (1995). Sex is not a natural act. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Reviewed by Nadir Kouri, Dept. of Sociology, University Bielefeld, 33617 Bielefeld, Germany; e-mail: [e-mail].