More history book geekery
Review spotted in the NY Times today. It'll quickly become obvious why this made me think of look_sharp:
SEX AND THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MAN: Massachusetts and the History of Sexuality in America. By Thomas A. Foster. (Beacon, $28.95.) In this plodding if occasionally saucy book, Foster - a historian at DePaul University - argues that our view of colonial America is much too chaste. You might not know it from reading those blockbusting biographies of the founding fathers, but sex was everywhere, “regulated, controlled, discussed and crafted as part of an effort to create social stability and define racial, class and gender social boundaries.” Foster’s lethally earnest style is anything but sexy, and his convoluted argument often takes maddening turns, but his research shows real archival flair. Zeroing in on the Bay State, Foster uses sermons, newspapers and court testimony to uncover a frank, often viciously witty discourse on male sexual behavior. Not surprisingly, marriage was “the only legitimate site for male sexual expression,” Foster writes. Giving pleasure was a male duty: in addition to making an honorable living, a husband had to keep things interesting in the bedroom. Sexual failure was grounds for divorce. (One wife complained that her husband was “naturally and incurably so defective in his body, that he is utterly incapable of Procreation.”) Bachelorhood was deeply suspect, and one tract warned that even single men who were celibate would “fry in the Grease of their own Sensuality.”
"We still do some things in Boston, Franklin!" XD
ETA: Author's abstract on the book. There are definitely more lively prose stylists out there, but he does seem to really know his stuff. Also, hilariously, includes an image of the book cover, which is entirely sporfle-worthy. Also, another review.
SEX AND THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MAN: Massachusetts and the History of Sexuality in America. By Thomas A. Foster. (Beacon, $28.95.) In this plodding if occasionally saucy book, Foster - a historian at DePaul University - argues that our view of colonial America is much too chaste. You might not know it from reading those blockbusting biographies of the founding fathers, but sex was everywhere, “regulated, controlled, discussed and crafted as part of an effort to create social stability and define racial, class and gender social boundaries.” Foster’s lethally earnest style is anything but sexy, and his convoluted argument often takes maddening turns, but his research shows real archival flair. Zeroing in on the Bay State, Foster uses sermons, newspapers and court testimony to uncover a frank, often viciously witty discourse on male sexual behavior. Not surprisingly, marriage was “the only legitimate site for male sexual expression,” Foster writes. Giving pleasure was a male duty: in addition to making an honorable living, a husband had to keep things interesting in the bedroom. Sexual failure was grounds for divorce. (One wife complained that her husband was “naturally and incurably so defective in his body, that he is utterly incapable of Procreation.”) Bachelorhood was deeply suspect, and one tract warned that even single men who were celibate would “fry in the Grease of their own Sensuality.”
"We still do some things in Boston, Franklin!" XD
ETA: Author's abstract on the book. There are definitely more lively prose stylists out there, but he does seem to really know his stuff. Also, hilariously, includes an image of the book cover, which is entirely sporfle-worthy. Also, another review.