A Couple of Books

Dr. Julia Shaw is psychological scientist and wrote a book entitled Evil.  This short book (under 200 pages) is a rather different matter and a more personal based account.  (I assume so -- I did not read the other book yet.)  

She herself came out as bi and her writes a book entitled Bi: The Hidden Culture, History, and Science of Bisexuality. The book covers those subjects, including a short history of the study of sexuality starting in the late 19th Century.  The book ends with an openness for freedom in sexuality in general, a late chapter supporting threesomes.  

(She drops a reference that she is married though does not talk about it.  For instance, it is not clear if it is an open marriage.  She is married to a guy.)  

The label "GLBTQ" ("queer" is used repeatedly here), as well as an expansion of the acronym (such as adding "A" or a general "+"), is familiar to a lot of people.  The "B" is a somewhat unexamined category, including how bisexuals are looked down upon by both gays and straights. The book notes that bisexuals are more often in the closet (logically probably since you can express yourself sexually partially) than either one.

I discussed a book from a few years ago about adultery earlier this year.  This book is a good one to at least check out (some of it is probably skimmable) to get a full understanding of modern sexuality.

===

Before reading this book, I was trying to finish a 20th book in the summer.  I finally decided to re-read John W. Johnson's book on Griswold v. Connecticut, which I own.  A quick and generally good read.  The book is not a comprehensive one (Liberty and Sexuality, a tome I also own, suggests what this might entail), but is overall a good edition to the casebook series of books on the Supreme Court.  Such books provide a snapshot of the Supreme Court as well as using one case to discuss a wider realm of law and policy.  When done right, I really like them.

(The book does not really provide both sides of the case though we get a bit of the state's case. What happened to the guy who argued the case afterwards? We also get a passing reference of a birth control advocate without a reminder it is Katherine Hepburn's mom.)

There is a good chapter that summarizes the various aspect of privacy that developed before Griswold, a subject that I have written a lot about.  The subject has a lot of fascinating parts. For instance, check out this summary of a companion case to Poe v. Ullman, a sort of false start:

Both are law students, Mrs. Trubek being twenty-one years old and her husband twenty-three years old. In March, 1959, they consulted a physician to obtain information and medical service as to the best and safest methods for the prevention of conception. They have a desire to raise a family but first wish an opportunity to adjust, mentally, spiritually and physically, to each other so as to establish a secure and permanent marriage before they become parents. A pregnancy at this time would mean a disruption of Mrs. Trubek's professional education. When they are economically and otherwise prepared to have children, the plaintiffs desire to have as many "as may be consistent with their resources, so as to insure adequate provision for each and all of them." The plaintiffs believe that they have a moral responsibility to have only as many children as they feel they can provide with the optimum individual care, attention and devotion. 

The extended battle to change the ban on use and sale of contraceptives in Connecticut was largely focused on birth control as a health matter.  This case underlined the wider purposes.  Prof. Melissa Murray talked about this as well in a good article. The battle continues (Trubek wrote an op-ed in 2012 on the fact).  

The book is from the early 2000s and ends with Lawrence v. Texas and the early fight for/against same sex marriage.  

A word about a related matter. Some keep on bringing up Loving v. Virginia, suggesting Justice Thomas (in an interracial marriage) is a hypocrite or something for not respecting a right to privacy.  This is an asinine cheap shot.  It's largely a racial discrimination case.  He is not going to threaten Loving for that very reason.  Likewise, his argument is that "marriage" is traditionally a man and a woman.  Focus on why the person is wrong, not making easily targeted sneers.  A personal pet peeve.